“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

[guanophore]

 I will assume you do not believe in predestination or election or the security of the believer.

Of course we do! We just believe it differently. Our beliefs are shaped by the Teaching of the Apsotles, where yours are shaped by a man who came along 1600 years after the fact and made up new doctrines to suit himself.

How God works this out and is just in doing so cannot be understood by the human mind, but it is what Scripture teaches whether you agree or disagree; it is God you must argue with.

No, Pat, I do not equate my arguements with you and Calvin as arguements with God. Neither of you has ascended to that level of Godhead in my world.

 Although the rhetoric question above "who can resist His will?", which the answer is no one can gives a hint, but must be put together with another passage or so to see irresistible grace.

It sounds like you are saying that no human can resist God’s purpose for themselves.

You will never understand or see these truths as long as you believe God’s main purpose for sending Jesus was to save man, which was not His main purpose.

OK. In that case, it is ok for me not to understand them.

 

[guanophore]

Show a verse where God justifies slavery in the way you have implied. He justifies slavery and in fact the only way one will be saved is becoming a slave to Christ; in that sense God justifies slavery.

Pat, this may be difficult for you, since you seem to fervently believed that Calvin echoes the Word of God, and you have said that he “speaks for God”, but I don’t recieve Calvin in this way. He is not a “God” to me.

My statement was that many men use the scriptures to justify their ideas. It does not equate to Truth. Calvin has used the Scriptures to demonstrate his theology of the TULIP, just as men have used Scripture to promote and defend slavery. I am talking here about the subjugation of Africans and other “dark” races (descendents of Cain) as they are called by those who use the scriptures this way.

 So can we throw out the Catholic inventions that appeared centuries later then on the same basis?

There are none, but if there were, of course we could.

Catholics are not allowed to depart from the One Faith that was committed to the Church. The Apostles taught that public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle. The main reason we must reject Calvin and the other Reformers is because their ideas constitute “a different gospel” from what we received through the Apostles.

You have no Biblical understanding of church so we cannot compare apple to apples.

Can you support this statement with any evidence?

 The Bible is clear that the entire creations waits for the revealing of the church, which are the "sons of God".

Indeed it does! We see this in scripture because this is what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, and the entire NT is a reflection of Catholic faith.

But like I said, you have a view of what the church is that differs from God definition of His bride so we have no grounds for debate in this area.

I will certainly stipulate that my understanding differs from yours. :sad_yes:

What made Calvin so great is that he dedicated His life to God and the study and exposition of His Word to lift people up to a high degree of worship of God, just as a preacher is commanded and He lived it out after he was converted and God used him in great ways, which is why  we are still talking about him and Luther, and Spurgeon et al.

I am sure they were all fervent in pursuing what they believed to be the Truth.

No He hardens their hearts, like Pharaoh for example, which means he simply did not reveal himself to him in any manner, shape or form to which the person could see His majesty and thus desire him. Judas Iscariot is probably the best example; he was prophesied and part of the plan of redemption; yet he never believed in Jesus or had genuine faith, he was in it for material gain and even after that he had remorse and hung himself unlike Peter who had remorse and repented, but then again God gave Satan permission to sift Peter and Jesus prayed for Peter that what wouldn’t fail?

My question was, "Do you mean to say that God causes certain people to reject Him? "

Here, you say “no” but then you go on to describe how God causes certain people to reject him.

Your conclusion, though, is based upon a false premise. You state “he smiply did not reveal himself to him in any manner, shape, or form to which the person could see His majesty, and thus desire Him”.

However, especially in the case of Judas, this is a false statement. It is clear from the Scriptures that Judas was included in all the revelations that Jesus gave of His majesty to His Apostles (up until the crucifixion, of course). He saw the same things they all saw.

His faith, there is a true faith and a false faith.

This is an extrabiblical tradition of men that was developed to support Calvanism. It is not taught by Jesus or the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

What God has purposed will always come to pass, that is what the Bible teaches.

Ok, so it sounds like you believe that people cannot reject God’s purpose for themselves. Is that right? If God purposes for them to be saved, then they will be, and if not, then they will not.

Here you are just wrong; that would be like saying that every congregation or gathering where the letters were read had no non-believers and that somehow the people that read them had some special ability to identify the elect of God - a foolish remark.

Since the Apostles and their disciples did not share your ideas about election, it is not foolish. What is foolish is interpreting the Holy Scriptures apart from their historical context. At the time these letters were written, the Church was undergoing persecution, that only got worse over the course of the following centuries.No one was admitted to the congregation unless they were sponsored (like Barnabas sponsored Paul - vouching for him), and NO ONE participated in the sacred mysteries who was uninitiated. To be a partaker, one had to have been catechized and baptized.

Especially considering how many here have read the same letters and are not believers.

This is the case now, but it was not then. anyone caught with chrisitan documents was sentenced to death.

I will agree the bible is for Christians only just as the church is for the unbeliever cannot understand the Bible and the Church is the gathering of believers to be equipped and edified to go out into the world to share the good news;

At least this is part of the definition of “chruch” about which we can agree.

unfortunately church discipline is at an all-time low tares have infiltrated almost all churches to one degree or another.

This is certainly true. But, at the time, Jesus was talking to Hebrews, persons already initiated into faith. The letters were written primarily to Gentiles who were baptized after Apostolic preaching.

I have no opinion as to your salvation and if I did it would be just that an opinion.  What God's knows is what will count.

I want you to clarify the assertion that you made, which had nothing to do with my salvation. Please defend the comment that you made, instead of dodging.

Notice starting in verse 3 Paul makes a general statement as is common to His writings and is stating a fact and magnifying God, a small doxology, if you will and he could also be speaking about those in verse 2 "all the brethren who are with me".  He could have both in mind.  Nevertheless verse 22 is the key to the entire section and[SIGN] it also nullifies the tradition of men[/SIGN] and shows that salvation comes by faith in Christ alone.

Please clarify what “tradition of men” you are referring to here.

 

[guanophore]

The context was he knew where he was going; implication is he knows he will be in heaven.

I hope you can explain this to me, because to me, it seems like he considers that he does not presume this.

1Cor.4
[1] This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
[2] Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.
[SIGN]3] But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself.
[4] I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
[5] Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, [/SIGN]before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.

It sounds to me like He trusts in God about making the judgement over himself.

That is a sin in Catholic circles.

Yes. Based upon the teaching of the Apostles, (including this passage above), Catholics believe that it is presumptuous to judge and aquit ourselves. It is up to God to pronounce judgment, and this does not happen until the end of this life.

2092 is the works based salvation in writing.

Catechism of the Catholic Church -

“presumption”

2091 The first commandment is also concerned with sins against hope, namely, despair and presumption:
By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God’s goodness, to his justice - for the Lord is faithful to his promises - and to his mercy.
　
2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

Could you please explain how this is “works based salvation?” I am not following you.

 

[guanophore]

Because you do not understand the Biblical understanding of apostate does not make me wrong; but it does make you wrong because I do understand the meaning and the example is accurate.

Well, Pat, we understand scripture differently. I understand that you believe your view is “biblical” and that when we read it and understand it differently than you, we are “unbiblical”.

We understand the meaning of “apostate” according to what the Apostles believed and taught, and according to the original language in which the NT was written. We know that “apostate” refers to one who has fallen away from the faith. We also know that one cannot “fall away” from that to which they weren not connected or holding.

And I will agre What makes one an apostate is that they turn from what they professed to believe, not from what they genuinely believed because if they genuinely believed they would not turn away from it - get it!!

Oh, yes, I get it. It is simply inconsistent with the Teaching we have received from the Apostles, and therefore, constitutes “a different gospel”. We are forbidden to accept it, lest we be accursed.

There are two kinds of faith, genuine faith and a false or professing faith.

I think you will have difficulty finding a verse in the bible that will support this assertion.

I do agree, there are those that profess, and are not believers, as you accruately pointed out were referenced in Jn - those who went out from us, but were not “us”.

If you understood the Parable of the soils, then you would understand the difference and much more as Jesus implies in Mark’s account of that particular parable.

The seeds sprouted in 75% of the cases.When the Word goes out, it does not always “sprout”. When it does, it is because it is received with Joy. I have not caught up to the posts, but I think you will agree with me that, according to the doctrine of total depravity, an unregenerate person cannot recieve the word of God with joy.

 

[Padrej]

There is no Talmud 65 AD. It is always dated much later than that. So no, Jude, Peter, and Paul would not have had a formal, or informal, “Talmud” to think it was inspired. Did some of the things that would eventually find themselves in it exist in oral form? Yes, but that is two seperate things. Now you really have me curious.

Now you have ME curious where you get that there was NO Talmud in 65 AD. While what you state is PARTLY true, the Talmud and Mishnah were still part of the ORAL tradition of the Jews since the Babylonian captivity times. The Mishnah was formally written in the 2nd century and the Talmud in the 5th but they were certainly a strong part of the Jewish faith at the time of the writing of Jude and Paul’s letters and that of Peter. Many Jews believe that the Talmud was taught by God to Moses and was handed down orally for centuries. This would have NOT been foreign to the writers of the NT.
See this link:
jewfaq.org/torah.htm
Under the section “oral Torah”
With that in mind where to you feel that Jude, Peter and Paul received the Oral “tradition of the elders”? This “tradition of the elders” is referred to by the Pharisees who challenge Jesus that his disciples do not follow the traditions of the elders in washing of hands. If this “oral tradition” was not around, where do you think the Pharisees pulled it from??? Do you think when they challenged Jesus that it was just because he was Jesus and they wanted to trap him by saying “we have a tradition” if the “tradition” was not already around?

 

[FrJohnB]

Now you have ME curious where you get that there was NO Talmud in 65 AD. While what you state is PARTLY true, the Talmud and Mishnah were still part of the ORAL tradition of the Jews since the Babylonian captivity times. The Mishnah was formally written in the 2nd century and the Talmud in the 5th but they were certainly a strong part of the Jewish faith at the time of the writing of Jude and Paul’s letters and that of Peter. Many Jews believe that the Talmud was taught by God to Moses and was handed down orally for centuries. This would have NOT been foreign to the writers of the NT.
See this link:
jewfaq.org/torah.htm
Under the section “oral Torah”
With that in mind where to you feel that Jude, Peter and Paul received the Oral “tradition of the elders”? This “tradition of the elders” is referred to by the Pharisees who challenge Jesus that his disciples do not follow the traditions of the elders in washing of hands. If this “oral tradition” was not around, where do you think the Pharisees pulled it from??? Do you think when they challenged Jesus that it was just because he was Jesus and they wanted to trap him by saying “we have a tradition” if the “tradition” was not already around?

Sound like Rightlydivide needs to brush up on his Jewish history. Maybe if he contacted Rabbi White who has been on staff at the Jesuit community at Georgetown U. he may get a better feel for this.
Even I know that the Talmud and Mishnah date orally before Christ.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Now you have ME curious where you get that there was NO Talmud in 65 AD. While what you state is PARTLY true, the Talmud and Mishnah were still part of the ORAL tradition of the Jews since the Babylonian captivity times. The Mishnah was formally written in the 2nd century and the Talmud in the 5th but they were certainly a strong part of the Jewish faith at the time of the writing of Jude and Paul’s letters and that of Peter. Many Jews believe that the Talmud was taught by God to Moses and was handed down orally for centuries. This would have NOT been foreign to the writers of the NT.
See this link:
jewfaq.org/torah.htm
Under the section “oral Torah”
With that in mind where to you feel that Jude, Peter and Paul received the Oral “tradition of the elders”? This “tradition of the elders” is referred to by the Pharisees who challenge Jesus that his disciples do not follow the traditions of the elders in washing of hands. If this “oral tradition” was not around, where do you think the Pharisees pulled it from??? Do you think when they challenged Jesus that it was just because he was Jesus and they wanted to trap him by saying “we have a tradition” if the “tradition” was not already around?

There is a lack of clarification of terms. It is not accurate to speak of Talmud and Mishnah like they existed at this time; they did not. There were traditions, obviously I have said that, but at no time would these have been considered infallible to Peter, Paul, or Jude. It cannot be ascertained what these oral traditions were and certainly not as it relates to the passages we are discussing. Remember, we are specifically talking about the comments of noninspired or noncanonical documents.
Where exactly did you get that I did not think that oral tradition did not exist?

Did some of the things that would eventually find themselves in it exist in oral form? Yes

Rev Bonner asserts that Jude quotes the Talmud. That simply cannot be.
There was no Talmud in 65 AD. You can say there is Jewish oral tradition but you cannot quantify it like that.

 

[RevJoeBonner]

There is no Talmud 65 AD. It is always dated much later than that. So no, Jude, Peter, and Paul would not have had a formal, or informal, “Talmud” to think it was inspired. Did some of the things that would eventually find themselves in it exist in oral form? Yes, but that is two seperate things. Now you really have me curious.

The Talmud was not formally written down until about the 5th century, prior to this it would have been oral tradition handed down. It was however still called the Talmud and Mishna.
The Mishna being more of the “traditions of the elders” that Jesus’ disciples get called to the proverbial carpet on in Matthew 15: 1-20. Check this link you will see that it links to the Mishna.
bible.org/seriespage/jesus-and-traditions-elders-matthew-151-20
If these traditions were not known as suppose then how do you account for them being referenced by Jude and others?

 

[Padrej]

There is a lack of clarification of terms. It is not accurate to speak of Talmud and Mishnah like they existed at this time; they did not. There were traditions, obviously I have said that, but at no time would these have been considered infallible to Peter, Paul, or Jude. It cannot be ascertained what these oral traditions were and certainly not as it relates to the passages we are discussing. Remember, we are specifically talking about the comments of noninspired or noncanonical documents.
Where exactly did you get that I did not think that oral tradition did not exist?

OK some of the Dead Sea Scrolls also reference the Talmud and Mishnah, they were certainly known in WRITTEN FORM at the time of the writing of the epistles. Were they (the Talmud) completely compiled at that time? No, not till the 5th century. so if the dead sea scrolls have it in them it only makes sense that the scribes of Jesus’ time had the same WRITTEN documents.
Where I got that you think that oral tradition did not exist is from your answer. You write as if tradition was not important. We do not know if Jude wrote from an non-canonical document as such or was he quoting the Mishnah or Talmud that at his time were starting to be in written form. The style of Jude is that he is quoting the Talmud.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Talmud was not formally written down until about the 5th century, prior to this it would have been oral tradition handed down. It was however still called the Talmud and Mishna.
The Mishna being more of the “traditions of the elders” that Jesus’ disciples get called to the proverbial carpet on in Matthew 15: 1-20. Check this link you will see that it links to the Mishna.
bible.org/seriespage/jesus-and-traditions-elders-matthew-151-20
If these traditions were not known as suppose then how do you account for them being referenced by Jude and others?

Nice try. When did I say they were not known?

 

[Rightlydivide]

OK some of the Dead Sea Scrolls also reference the Talmud and Mishnah, they were certainly known in WRITTEN FORM at the time of the writing of the epistles. Were they (the Talmud) completely compiled at that time? No, not till the 5th century. so if the dead sea scrolls have it in them it only makes sense that the scribes of Jesus’ time had the same WRITTEN documents.
Where I got that you think that oral tradition did not exist is from your answer. You write as if tradition was not important. We do not know if Jude wrote from an non-canonical document as such or was he quoting the Mishnah or Talmud that at his time were starting to be in written form. The style of Jude is that he is quoting the Talmud.

So I write like tradition is not important …and that means I think that oral tradition did not exist? How can someone write like something is not important if it does not exist? Are you listening to yourself?

 

[Padrej]

The Talmud was not formally written down until about the 5th century, prior to this it would have been oral tradition handed down. It was however still called the Talmud and Mishna.
The Mishna being more of the “traditions of the elders” that Jesus’ disciples get called to the proverbial carpet on in Matthew 15: 1-20. Check this link you will see that it links to the Mishna.
bible.org/seriespage/jesus-and-traditions-elders-matthew-151-20
If these traditions were not known as suppose then how do you account for them being referenced by Jude and others?

Here is another link on the Mishnah where parts of it are quoted in the NT and Gospels.
virtualreligion.net/iho/purity.html

 

[FrJohnB]

So I write like tradition is not important …and that means I think that oral tradition did not exist? How can someone write like something is not important if it does not exist? Are you listening to yourself?

If you want a direct WRITTEN place to look for the Jude passage in question, he quotes almost directly 1 Enoch 6-9 of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Now do you believe that there were written down pieces that were in addition to the Torah, and the Talmud and Mishnah?
This document was certainly in existence at that time. To save you some time as a Protestant, I looked it up in a Protestant Bible commentary “James and Jude” by William Brosend II published by New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Pages 172-175
I hope that you will look this up for yourself as it is in a Protestant Bible commentary, as you seem to write from your posts that no Protestant would believe such.

 

[Padrej]

If you want a direct WRITTEN place to look for the Jude passage in question, he quotes almost directly 1 Enoch 6-9 of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Now do you believe that there were written down pieces that were in addition to the Torah, and the Talmud and Mishnah?
This document was certainly in existence at that time. To save you some time as a Protestant, I looked it up in a Protestant Bible commentary “James and Jude” by William Brosend II published by New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Pages 172-175
I hope that you will look this up for yourself as it is in a Protestant Bible commentary, as you seem to write from your posts that no Protestant would believe such.

You are correct father, I have a copy of this commentary you mention and it does mention this same facts. I am curious why you as a Catholic priest would have such?

 

[FrJohnB]

You are correct father, I have a copy of this commentary you mention and it does mention this same facts. I am curious why you as a Catholic priest would have such?

The commentary was given to me by a retiring Protestant minister who was looking to “convert” me. I find it interesting to know what the other side thinks on a given subject.

 

[onenow1]

Hi All
Something to think on.

And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;”
Acts 9:4-5

=onenow1 Destructions usually comes from within..

Here’s a few observations regarding longevity and the Catholic Church.

The Roman Empire, was the most powerful state the world had ever seen around 20 B.C. by Caesar Augustus, it collapsed 476 A.D… It lasted 503 years. At this time Jesus Church was 446 years despite being attacked from within by heretics such as the Simonians, Marcionites, Monarchians, Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Arians, Jovinians, Pelagians, Nestorians, and scores of others.

The Arian heresy alone, started by Arius, an insider priest who denied the divinity of Christ, was blamed for causing many of the faithful priests and Bishops to follow him. Yet despite all the slings arrows from within, Christ’s Church survived.

The gates of hell did not prevail.

Yet that is only part of the story, at the time all of this was going on, the Jews, Romans, Vandals and many others, attacking Christ’s Church still it survived, and all the while it was steadily growing and expanding.
Again, the gates of hell did not prevail.

How then could the powerful Roman Empire collapse and yet the fledgling Church surrvive.
I think this is the answer.{“So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of GOD, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing GOD!”}
Acts 5:38-39

Why then is it so hard for some to believe the Word of GOD?

There’s more> The Moslem wars in 7AD The infamous Crusades, after several centuries, in 1571 the Miracle at Lepanto, Moslems were out numbered and outgunned. The fact is we might all be Moslems today !

.Again, the gates of hell did not prevail. .

God’s Church has always been much larger then any individual if you look closely you can see the fingerprints of God.In 1520, the Church which Jesus Christ founded, was beset with more attacks from within, by the heresy of Protestantism.Martin Luther and several others who led the Protestant revolt were insider priests of that Church

There was a large temporary outflux soon after 1520 when approximately nine million European members of the Body of Christ left and formed a multitude of Protestant denominations. Caused by priests from within.

But in1531 the Church had an influx of ten million new converts in Mexico due to the miraculous event of Guadalupe in that year. This influx more than made up for the outflow in Europe. Despite the turmoil of the Protestant revolt, the Church which Jesus Christ founded continued to grow.

Again, the gates of hell did not prevail. It is GOD’s guarantee that His Church will be protected and will continue to grow.His Church has always been much larger than any individual within it.

Compare the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, with the advent of Protestantism. Both groups, being threats to GOD’s plan of salvation, were almost immediately divided into small pieces and rendered impotent, Babel by a plethora of languages, and Protestantism by a plethora of sects, which at present is

Redemption [ORAR]=YES [OSAS]= Looks good on paper. But No.

God Bless All
onenow1

 

[Rightlydivide]

If you want a direct WRITTEN place to look for the Jude passage in question, he quotes almost directly 1 Enoch 6-9 of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Now do you believe that there were written down pieces that were in addition to the Torah, and the Talmud and Mishnah?
This document was certainly in existence at that time. To save you some time as a Protestant, I looked it up in a Protestant Bible commentary “James and Jude” by William Brosend II published by New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Pages 172-175
I hope that you will look this up for yourself as it is in a Protestant Bible commentary, as you seem to write from your posts that no Protestant would believe such.

Of course he does. That is not the Talmud…is it?
So Father, Reverend, and Bishop (quite the coincidence…just my luck), does Paul or Jude quote the Talmud or is that anachronistic?

 

[Padrej]

Of course he does. That is not the Talmud…is it?
So Father, Reverend, and Bishop (quite the coincidence…just my luck), does Paul or Jude quote the Talmud or is that anachronistic?

From the following link:
bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/pauls-dependency-on-talmudic-writings-evidence-of-new-testament-borrowing/#footnote_0_106

*In 2 Timothy 3:8, we see that Paul traditionally names two of the Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses as Jannes and Jambres, respectively. He compares the both of them with his enemies, as the following verse records:

“Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so do these men oppose the truth, corrupt thinkers as they are and counterfeits so far as faith is concerned.”

The names of these two Egyptian magicians are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. The Midrash Rabbah on Exodus, however, makes mention of these two names as “Yochani” and “Mamre” respectively, and states:

Amru Yochani uMamre L’Moshe: “teben atah makhnis L’efrayim?” Amar Lahem “L’matah yarqa yarqa sh’qol.”

Yochani and Mamre said to Moshe “Would you carry straw to Afraim?” He [Moses] said to them: “carry herbs to herb-town.”1

The names of these Egyptian magicians also appears in Midrash Tanchuma (Parshat Ki Tisa) 19:19 as a Commentary on Exodus 32:

Forty thousand people had assembled to leave Egypt with the Israelites, and among them were two Egyptians named Jannes and Jambres, who had performed magical feats for Pharaoh.2

Thus it is clear that these magicians’ names came from the Rabbinic traditions and had no doubt influenced Paul considerably to include these names in his epistle.

Paul also adopted the current Jewish chronologies in Acts 13:20-21. He alludes to the notion that the Adam of Genesis 1 is the ideal or spiritual, the Adam of Gen 2 the concrete and sinful Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47, also found in Philo, De Opif. Mund i.32). The conception of the last trumpet (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16) , of the giving of the Law at Sinai by Angels (Galatians 3:19), of Satan as the god of this world and the prince of the air (Ephesians 2:2) and of the celestial and infernal hierarchies (Ephesians 1:21, 3:10; 4:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:15) are all recurrent in Talmudic writings.

When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:10 that a women ought to have a veil on her head because of the angel, as stated in the following:

“The woman, therefore, ought to have a token of authority on her head, because of the angels”

he demonstrates a very high familiarity with the Talmudic writings, as he is apparently referring to the Rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 6:2 as follows:

Binei Elohim. B’nei ha-sarim v’ha-shoftim. Davar acher: b’nei ha-Elohim, hem ha-sarim ha-holkhim bishlichuto shel maqom, af hem hayu mitarvim bahem; kal elohim shebamiqra l’shon marut, v’zeh yokhiach: V’atah tiyeh lo lelohim, r’eh n’tatikha elohim.

THE SONS OF GOD. The sons of princes and rulers. Another explanation of B’nei Elohim is that these were princely angels who came as messengers of God, and they intermingled with the daughters of men. Wherever the word “elohim” appears in the scriptures, it signifies authority, thus the following passages: “And you shall be his master (elohim)” [Exodus 4:16] and “see, I have made you a master (elohim).” [Exodus 7:1]3*

So YES they do quote the Talmud and other Jewish Oral Traditions.

 

[Rightlydivide]

From the following link:
bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/pauls-dependency-on-talmudic-writings-evidence-of-new-testament-borrowing/#footnote_0_106

*In 2 Timothy 3:8, we see that Paul traditionally names two of the Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses as Jannes and Jambres, respectively. He compares the both of them with his enemies, as the following verse records:

“Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so do these men oppose the truth, corrupt thinkers as they are and counterfeits so far as faith is concerned.”

The names of these two Egyptian magicians are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. The Midrash Rabbah on Exodus, however, makes mention of these two names as “Yochani” and “Mamre” respectively, and states:

Amru Yochani uMamre L’Moshe: “teben atah makhnis L’efrayim?” Amar Lahem “L’matah yarqa yarqa sh’qol.”

Yochani and Mamre said to Moshe “Would you carry straw to Afraim?” He [Moses] said to them: “carry herbs to herb-town.”1

The names of these Egyptian magicians also appears in Midrash Tanchuma (Parshat Ki Tisa) 19:19 as a Commentary on Exodus 32:

Forty thousand people had assembled to leave Egypt with the Israelites, and among them were two Egyptians named Jannes and Jambres, who had performed magical feats for Pharaoh.2

Thus it is clear that these magicians’ names came from the Rabbinic traditions and had no doubt influenced Paul considerably to include these names in his epistle.

Paul also adopted the current Jewish chronologies in Acts 13:20-21. He alludes to the notion that the Adam of Genesis 1 is the ideal or spiritual, the Adam of Gen 2 the concrete and sinful Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47, also found in Philo, De Opif. Mund i.32). The conception of the last trumpet (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16) , of the giving of the Law at Sinai by Angels (Galatians 3:19), of Satan as the god of this world and the prince of the air (Ephesians 2:2) and of the celestial and infernal hierarchies (Ephesians 1:21, 3:10; 4:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:15) are all recurrent in Talmudic writings.

When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:10 that a women ought to have a veil on her head because of the angel, as stated in the following:

“The woman, therefore, ought to have a token of authority on her head, because of the angels”

he demonstrates a very high familiarity with the Talmudic writings, as he is apparently referring to the Rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 6:2 as follows:

Binei Elohim. B’nei ha-sarim v’ha-shoftim. Davar acher: b’nei ha-Elohim, hem ha-sarim ha-holkhim bishlichuto shel maqom, af hem hayu mitarvim bahem; kal elohim shebamiqra l’shon marut, v’zeh yokhiach: V’atah tiyeh lo lelohim, r’eh n’tatikha elohim.

THE SONS OF GOD. The sons of princes and rulers. Another explanation of B’nei Elohim is that these were princely angels who came as messengers of God, and they intermingled with the daughters of men. Wherever the word “elohim” appears in the scriptures, it signifies authority, thus the following passages: “And you shall be his master (elohim)” [Exodus 4:16] and “see, I have made you a master (elohim).” [Exodus 7:1]3*

So YES they do quote the Talmud and other Jewish Oral Traditions.

Reverend, Father, Bishop

They do not quote the Talmud. It was not in written form yet. Yes they do quote oral traditions that did not exist in the Talmud because…it did not exist yet.