D
dennisknapp
Guest
What Scriptures are being refered to here? Is it the 66 books of your bible or the OT? Let’s keep the historical context here.
Peace
Can Anyone Really Be 100% Sure They Will Go To Heaven When They Die?
- Status
Peace
D
dennisknapp
Guest
If you want to discuss the issues of “biblical” Christianity vs. Roman Catholicism please go to thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=36091
Peace
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Perhaps you need to take the time and find out. The real traditions of men are:
- Sola Scriptura - smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_34.gif
- Sola Fide - smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_32.gif
- Sola Gratia - smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_18.gif
- OSAS
- Rapture and Dispensationalism
- The imposition of second generation laws such as banning listening to rock music or even Christian music, banning alcohol etc. etc.
Our Sacred Tradition is based upon the celebration of the Eucharist which is very Scriptural (not like the above)
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_15.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_16.gif
Maggie
D
dennisknapp
Guest
As a former Protestant and anti-Catholic,and now Catholic, I fully agree(except # 3, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt)! Amen
Peace
M
MaggieOH
Guest
It depends upon whether the doctrine is consistent with what comes from receiving grace, what I am getting at is the argument concerning not doing works
, which is yet something else that is misunderstood.Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
M
MaggieOH
Guest
BR
Definitely food for thought since I had not heard of this before now. I am not saying it is not possible, because there is much that is not written in the Scripture.
However, the most that I can get out of what is there is that neither Matthew nor Zaccheus behaved in that manner to collected their taxes.
On the other hand, I doubt that this Matt 18: 23-35 was meant to apply to the tax collectors by Jesus. The parable itself had to do with loans rather than taxes. At this point I think that I need to know a lot more about society in those days, because you are right when you say that when someone could not pay a loan he or she would be sold off.
My impression of that parable is that Jesus was using it as an illustration of forgiveness of debt, and that if one does not also forgive after being forgiven then there would be a punishment applied until the last penny is paid. (it sounds a lot like how I was brought up to see Purgatory - as the final payment for the sins that had not yet been cleansed
)Thanks all the same, I am enjoying getting this particular insight.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Context, Context, Context
The problem here is that you ignore what came before the quote as well as what has come afterwards. That is what we term the twisting of Scripture, or to put it another way, it can be called Cafeteria Scripture reading.
We do not deny the proposition that what has been accepted as Scripture is INSPIRED by God. That is not the argument here. In fact I see that point as being an attempt to hijack the thread so that the real issue gets lost amongst the responses.
All Scripture means both Old and New Testaments. However, there is a qualifier since at the time that Paul wrote neither the Old Testament canon or the New Testament canons were completed and accepted.
(Now this opens up another issue that should be discussed elsewhere - if Paul said that all Scripture is inspired, and we accept that this is true, without hestitation, - and since the Diaspora Christians read the Septuagint that includes books that have been removed by the Jews in A.D. 90 when Paul was already dead - then what has been removed was accepted by St. Paul as being inspired by God)
Once again here is the passage (RSVCE)
“Now you have observed my teaching, **my conduct, my aim in life… indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, **while evil men and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. **But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed knowing from whom you learned it and **how from your childhood you have been **acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3: 10, 12-17)
**By taking only a small portion of this letter and claiming that it supports Sola Scriptura, which is your hidden agenda, you do an injustice to the whole of what Paul is saying here. Yes, Paul means all Scripture. He means all of the manuscripts that made up the Septuagint in the Diaspora, that is the same books that are used today in the Catholic Church.
The wording here is interesting because it suggests a lot more than you will admit. In particular : “profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness”. If you believe these words that are written by St. Paul, then why claim that the books that have been excluded from the Protestant canon of Scripture are not inspired ? You see Paul refers to those books in these very words. The Book of Wisdom and the Book of Sirach are definitely profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and for training in righteousness.
Your contention that St. Paul was addressing the NATURE of the canon of Scripture is in error for the very reason that nothing had been decided at the point in time when Paul wrote. If you claim that he was speaking about the nature of the canon of Scripture then you have to concede the error of the removal of those books.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Actually you were the one who took the thread off track by making irrelevant interpretations on the meaning of 2Timothy 3: 12-17. Also you are the one that neglected the full context of what St. Paul was saying, thus leading everyone down a different path. That is a well known diversionary tactic but it does not work all that well.
The Scripture does not say it is the sole rule of faith. I have yet to see one single verse that supports this false position.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
After reading this pitiful exegesis I felt like singing “let’s twist again like we did last summer”.
Here is what I consider a superior understanding of the same passage:God acts in and through the Church the way that a good father does within the family. The Church is not a purely human society where ministers can exercise their functions as they think fit; it is a household which belongs to God.
Once again you pull the verse out of its proper context and then you distort what is stated by Catholic Apologists in order to attempt to score a point. Well with such bad exegesis you could say that it is a score of 0.
Regardless of how you try to twist what is in Scripture, what is stated is that “the household of God is **the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth”
**It is Christ who founded the Church. It is Christ who is the cornerstone and the Apostles are the pillars of the Church. It is the Apostles and their successors who are the pillar and bulwark of the truth that is Jesus Christ.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Yet another example of how people do not understand the difference between the traditions of men and the Sacred Tradition.
At no time did Jesus speak against the Sacred Traditions of the Jews. In fact He upheld all of the Sacred Traditions, especially the Passover and the other festivals that required the Jews to go up to the Temple to offer sacrifice. He even paid His Temple tax.
It was Jesus who established our Sacred Traditions: the Mass and Eucharist, Baptism, Holy Orders, Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Reconciliation, the Our Father and all that we hold dear. The order of the Mass itself resembles the assembly in the synagogue with its readings and liturgy.
Not so with the other traditions, that is what Jesus referred to as the traditions of men. These included the laws relating to what can and cannot be done on the Sabbath, including attempting to feed oneself by plucking off an ear of wheat in the fields, as well as the requirement to keep a kosher house, wash one’s hands before eating and a variety of other rituals and laws relating to what is and what is not clean. These were the traditions that were added to God’s laws by the Pharisees.
Even so you err in you understanding exactly what Jesus was condemning with regard to these traditions of men. He was condemning the Pharisees, not the traditions per se, because the Pharisees were acting as though they were keeping these laws, whilst in secret they were doing evil things such as not providing for their elderly parents.
Just as the Pharisees added to God’s laws and at the time of Jesus the effects of those laws was oppressing the people, the same is true the doctrines found within Protestanism that are not supported by the Scripture. For example many denominations (including the cults) have introduced their own version of laws that must be obeyed:
- Sabbath worship (SDA)
- vegetarianism (SDA)
- the no blood rule (JWs)
- ban on smoking, alcohol, rock music etc (fundamentalist Baptist)
- ban on Sunday shopping, watching TV or participating in sport on Sundays, going to the zoo or any other family activity that involves handing over money on a Sunday, including buying a newspaper or a cup of coffee.
Other traditions of men are:
Anabaptism - this clearly goes against the instructions of Jesus;
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
OSAS
Rapture
You cannot escape the fact that these things were not taught by the early Christians. There is no point trying to continue to twist St. Paul’s letters to Timothy because I am telling you that they do not support what you claim. These things have no foundation prior to the 1500s
Maggie
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Show us these alleged “half-truths” Oh great preacher of man doctrines that were not held by our church fathers.With historical revisionism, vitriol, and half-truths? If that’s how you want to “bring em all home,” I’ll lead you to it.
God bless,
c0ach
There’s been no revisionism that I’ve seen, just a lot of lies and allegations by people like you who should know better, IF they really were devout Catholics to begin with.
Speaking of vitirol…you don’t see us on your forums talking smack about your religion. Do you “feel called” to guide us away from “the errors of our ways”?
Half-truths…ya mean like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? Doctrines of men created by the very system that YOU choose to desert the faith for? Like denying the Eucharist which is one of the most clearly Biblical things that Catholics believe and that YOU and your anti-Catholic friends DON’T?
Certainly there was much discussion in the early church, but the defined voice of authority is the final answer and whether anyone chooses to obey is on their head and soul. “As for me and my house…”
Pax vobiscum,
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif
C
caroljm36
Guest
Please do not insert punctuation errors into Holy Scripture!
S
serendipity
Guest
This would be the fact that the abbreviated Old Testament used by the Protestants is the collection that was abbreivated by a Pharisee, Jarius, after the collapse of Rome in 70AD.
The Catholic form of the Old Testamen includes all the books that Jews of Jesus’s time believed to be scrpitural, and Catholics like to keep everything that Jesus referred to for his teaching to influence their teaching.
The Pharissee Jarius’ enclave of Jewish survivors noticed they were losing many traditional Jews to Christianity becuase the apocalyptical nature of the Roman attack on Jeruslaem between AD 66-70 represented the fulfillment of Jesus’ Olivet discourse. So they worked through their doctines and came up with a new edition fo their Scripture, which left out some fo the apssages that provided support for the fact that Jesus was the messiah, with the hope that this new body of teaching would undermine Jesus’ credibility.
True that by the time Jerome and Augsutine were battleing on what books should be included, there was some dissention of which books were the original scriprtue that Jesus referred to in the early church. But scholarly investigation, led by the Holy Spirt by no small part to be sure, led the groupd to realize that the Jrion collection was what it was; an abbreviated version that left out essential truths of religion as taught by God.
Luther did not decide to use this version, until he lost many a debate about the existance of Purgatory, which is in Maccabbees, and he decided to use the Jarion collection, rather than what had become the traditional collection by the Church. In compiling his recommended version of the biblical truth, he left out sections that undermined his theology.
I belive that Luther had some valid complaints about the church at his time. And even today it is not perfect. Any institution that involves men has porblems, becuse God alone is perfect. But at the same time, I think if Luther’s theology was supportable than he would not fell the need to dispose of the scrpiture that did not support him, because he would have found the answer form God in how to address his version of truth from the Scripture, if it were true.
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
Hi Dennis, peace to you too.
You may have missed my response to this already. Please read post 51 on this thread if you could.
Thanks and God bless,
c0ach
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
Maggie, cool icons girl! I actually agree with you on some of these.
I believe the Bible teaches sola Scriptura and I posted a short post on it. Since this is an item in contention, this is begging the question.
Again, I believe the Bible teaches this plainly, but I won’t go down this rabbit trail as this thread is confusing enough. Again, this is begging the question.
I think we both agree on this one, so I’m not sure why you listed this as a tradition of men. However, your definition of grace would probably be a little different than mine.
The typical understanding of OSAS is indeed a tradition of men and unsupportable by Scripture. Once Justified Always Justified on the other hand…
Again, I agree with you. Both traditions of men.
Amazing! I agree wholeheartedly…more traditions of men.
Actually the burden of proof is on you. Because I showed you two passages where Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their traditions–when the Pharisees were convinced they were Sacred Traditions. I don’t see why RC Traditions are any different.
This is a rather arbitrary answer. Again, the Pharisees were the the most respected priests in God’s chosen race. They have a pretty dang good claim to having divine traditions too. Jesus still held their supposedly “sacred traditions” accountable to Scripture.
I also point out that no one has yet given another God-breathed rule of faith from the Bible.
God bless,
c0ach
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
Maggie you’re not a big c0ach fan are you?
Maggie, you caught me. I want to hide the real issue from people because I’m a sinister person. I appreciate the ad hominem.
Thanks for the admission Maggie.
I agree 100%, but the passage is talking about Scripture’s abilities. The extent of the canon is entirely irrelevant. You yourself must agree with me because you just admitted that the “All Scripture means both the Old and New Testaments.” So why are we still beating this dead horse? Let him die…or better yet, let’s bury him. I’ll get the shovel.
I wish you followed your own advice, because yes this must be discussed elsewhere. But briefly:
- No one knows exactly what books were in the Septuagint in Jesus’ day. The earliest extant manuscripts date back to the fourth century and are Christian, not Jewish, in origin.
- The council of Jamnia, which you refer to, did not “remove” or “add” books to the canon. It wasn’t actually a council, but a synod, and the date is unclear as to when it was held. Josephus points out that the canon was already set well before Christ walked the earth in many ways–the chief being the books laid up in the temple.
- The extant Septuagint MSS contain books that even Catholics reject (along with the Jews). 3 and 4 Maccabees are examples of this. The Jews understood that a book could be included in the Septuagint and yet not be inspired. As did the early church.
I wish you wouldn’t impugn my motives (hidden agenda) at every turn.
Okay, that’s great. We agree on this again.
I’m noticing that you’ve changed your argument from earlier–that this passage only refers to the Old Testament…so we’re making progress. But I still see a flaw. Was Paul referring to books like 3 and 4 Maccabees too? Books that Rome rejects, but were included in the Septuagint?
You assert this, but you haven’t shown it. The canon debate is an entirely different issue that I’d like to stay away from as much as possible.
This isn’t my contention at all, sorry if I was unclear. 2 Tim 3:16-17 is talking about the origin (God) and resultant nature of the Scriptures (able to make the man of God fully equipped, complete). The Canon isn’t even hinted at because it’s talking about “All Scripture” which you agree refers to both the Old and New Testaments.
Do you think that Scripture is able to make the man of God fully complete and fully equipped, able to meet all demands?
God bless,
c0ach
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
Maggie, hows it going? I understand you feel that I’m a big ol’ “Scripture Twister” of the worst kind. Let’s see why:After reading this pitiful exegesis I felt like singing “let’s twist again like we did last summer”.
You lost me. How does the context of 1 Tim 3:15 make a pillar the same thing as what it holds up? I missed where you brought up any context yourself. I hope you’re not hiding behind the “context wildcard” where one can wave their hands, say the magic words “ignoring the context” and sound convincing. You should actually bring in the context and exegete them if you’re going to accuse me of ignoring said context.
Okay, I get it,…I twisted Scripture and ignored the context. But how did I do it? You just reiterate your position and impugn my motives…but I’ve yet to see any meaningful interaction with the passage in quiestion.
I agree with everything you say here (except for the “and their successors” part). But I still ask you–where does the Bible speak of another God-breathed, infallible rule of faith for the normative condition of the Church (for us today)? 1 Tim 3:15 doesn’t speak of one. Do you have any other examples?
God bless,
c0ach
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
Korban rule?
This is Scriptural. We are talking about extra-scriptural traditions that are felt to be divine. Like the Korban rule, the hand-washing ceremonies, talmudic decrees and so forth.
Yes, they were traditions of men, but the Pharisees felt they were handed down from God, just like the Catholic does today. Jesus still held Scripture over these supposedly divine traditions. What compelling reason can you give to tell me that the Pharasaical claims to divine traditions are any different than the Roman Catholic claims to divine traditions?
Actually, many of those were, but this is an entirely different debate. We can discuss them if you like, but I’m trying to trim my topic exposure on this thread.
Regardless, if Scripture teaches it and contradicts the fathers…Scripture wins.God bless,
c0ach
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
Church Militant:
- Status