How do Catholics explain 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrews 7:26?

[Arglaze]

Wow.Y’know,In some nighborhoods,them’s fightin’ words!
The Catholic church has been around for an awful long time!
…
Tradition is what got translated into what we call our Bible.
John 21:25
Blow the dust off your Bible!

I understand the love Catholics have for their church, and will defend it at any cost, however The adherence to the Scriptures are the test by which God’s people are identified, not a name or a group (my church included).

I hear a lot about the Catholics being 2000 years old, but that doesn’t guaranty its fidelity to Christ. If we want to go by the age, then we should go back to the Israel that rejected our Lord. It sounds ridiculous, but check it out.

1. Israel is older than the Catholic Church.
2. They too were also founded by Jesus himself.
   John 5:46-47 - “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” Jesus was that cloud leading them, also the fire by night, Jesus founded Israel, just like he did, the Apostolic Church.

However, that same Church he founded turned against Him when
He came to his own. And they received Him not, because of their “traditions”, which men made under what they thought was the inspiration of God for the good of the church. They made the commandments of God (His Word, the Scriptures) void.

Jesus said:
Mark 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 ultimately they crucified Him, and persecuted the “heretics” that were destroying the “tradition” by simply preaching the Word of God found in the Scriptures.

There’s a lesson to be learned there, and Jesus states it in plain simple language. God’s people are identified for their following the Word of God, not their church’s age or traditions.

Luke 8:21 - “And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the Word of God, and do it.” (not them that hear the traditions of rabbis because the church is old)

Men’s traditions, for as good as they may appear don’t have God backing their word. And adding or taking from Jesus’ Word is breaking his commandments.
Matthew 15:9 - “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Tradition is not what’s translated into what we know as Bible. A compilation of Books is what the word Bible means. But in these books is recorded the story of God dealings with humanity, and what God himself has spoken, therefore the Scriptures are the Word of God, making it the ultimate Authority in matters of Faith, salvation, and to determine who God’s people are.

The saints are “they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12

God has magnified the Scriptures above everything, even the psalmist under the inspiration of the Spirit says:

Psalm 138:2 - “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy loving kindness and for thy truth: for Thou hast magnified thy Word above all thy name.”

If there was no man alive and all you had was the Word of God, that alone is sufficient to understand the providences of God. No tradition added to it.

 

[Arglaze]

Consider yourself corrected. So now you are teaching that Paul is superior to all the other apostles since after He persecuted The Church Jesus gave him direct private revelation that was superior to what he gave the other 12?

Hahaha … who writes your comedy for you? Mr Chick?

James

Does anyone see that I’m teaching that Paul was Superior to the other 12 Apostles by posting this scripture, which plainly states that Paul didn’t learn about Christ from them?

Galatians 1:11-12, 16-19
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. “… immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”

Where in that text does it say that Paul is superior to the other 12? Please don’t put words in my mouth and most definitely in the mouth of the Holy Scriptures, that is heresy.

And whoever reads that Paul is superior to the other 12 in that text, should seriously get an eye doctor. I can already see that some people have problem reading what’s in the Bible.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Does anyone see that I’m teaching that Paul was Superior to the other 12 Apostles by posting this scripture, which plainly states that Paul didn’t learn about Christ from them?

Galatians 1:11-12, 16-19
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. “… immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”

Where in that text does it say that Paul is superior to the other 12? Please don’t put words in my mouth and most definitely in the mouth of the Holy Scriptures, that is heresy.

And whoever reads that Paul is superior to the other 12 in that text, should seriously get an eye doctor. I can already see that some people have problem reading what’s in the Bible.

You are being intellectually dishonest here. You were trying to use Paul’s calling as a means to draw a false dichotomy that direct scripture prevails over apostolic teaching - all while conveniently forgetting that each of the apostles were taught personally by Jesus. Why try to make Paul out as if he is different than the other apostles? He was not - ALL the apostles were taught by Jesus. Paul just happens to get his personal teachings later than all the rest. It is also true that Paul recognized Peter’s seniority and leadership role and was subordinate to it - even if he corrected him for one incident.

So what’s your point in bringing all this up in the first place if not to try to discredit the legitimacy of apostolic teaching and push your bible-only agenda?

James

 

[Arglaze]

A couple of facts that might help in this discussion:
2. All of what Christ and the apostles taught is not in the bible. The bible says this.
3. No book could ever contain all that God has to tell us.

Well, let me help you correct that statement by showing you in the Bible, because sometimes we didn’t come across the information even though its there.

Jesus’ Disciples said in Luke 24:32 “And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Ok, David says in Psalms 138:2 - “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”

If there’s still confusion, then listen to Jesus’ own words then and lets obey his command:
John 5:39 - “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”

Jesus is the living expression of the Word of God. But since you and I can’t see him physically, we’re commanded to look at him in the Word of God, or like some call it, “The Bible”

No book could contain all that God has to tell us?
Actually, yes it can be done, and it can be summed in this simple text:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” - John 3:16

But since we’re so hard of hearing (myself included), He’s given us the whole of the Holy Record, so we may better understand that. Which explains in detail what it means.

There are more texts to support that all of what Jesus and The Apostles taught was in the Bible, in fact, most of it can easily be found in the Old Testament, since that’s what they used to teach. Protestants don’t worship the Bible, the Bible teaches us how to worship God.

 

[Arglaze]

You are being intellectually dishonest here. You were trying to use Paul’s calling as a means to draw a false dichotomy that direct scripture prevails over apostolic teaching - all while conveniently forgetting that each of the apostles were taught personally by Jesus. Why try to make Paul out as if he is different than the other apostles? He was not - ALL the apostles were taught by Jesus. Paul just happens to get his personal teachings later than all the rest. It is also true that Paul recognized Peter’s seniority and leadership role and was subordinate to it - even if he corrected him for one incident.

So what’s your point in bringing all this up in the first place if not to try to discredit the legitimacy of apostolic teaching and push your bible-only agenda?

James

What dichotomy is there in that simple scripture I posted? The only person interpreting what you’re saying above its you.
I don’t see what you’re saying, and I posted that in explanation to what someone else wrote above. That’s what happens when writings are taken out of context.
There was no superiority among the disciples, in fact Jesus cut that up the first time it became an issue among them. All that scripture is saying is that Paul was not taught about Christ nor his doctrine from them, but by God himself. Does that make him superior to the others? I don’t think so, but you say it does.

I can’t make sense of your accusation, please read more carefully.

Discredit the legitimacy of the apostles teachings? are you serious, where am I discrediting them?

 

[adrift]

We could spend a lot of time exchanging historical data, and I’ll try to stick to the Word of God, just for this space’s sake.

The thief in the cross could not have gone to paradise with Jesus that day, and lets assume that he died (though the scriptures don’t say that)
But I’ll assume he died, since you already believe it as a fact. Jesus himself did not go to paradise that day, he just went to hell (which literally translated is sheol, or tomb, or grave to describe the state of the dead), and his going to paradise did not happen till Sunday, on the day that he resurrected.

You are equating Paradise with the presence of God but they are not the same.

Paradise is the place where those souls waited for the heavens to be opened.

Paradise is word of Persian origin (Persian: پردیس, Pardìs) that is generally identified with the Garden of Eden or with Heaven. Originally meaning a walled garden or royal hunting grounds, the term entered Jewish (and eventually Christian) beliefs as a Greek translation for the Garden of Eden in the Septuagint. It is sometimes also identified with the bosom of Abraham, the abode of the righteous dead awaiting Judgment Day. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells a penitent criminal crucified alongside him that they will be together in paradise that day.
Dictionary of the Bile –John L. McKenzie, S.J.

The bible states that Jesus

1 Peter 3:19
19
In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison

This is where both He and the thief went to bring the Good News to those who had died.

The Scripture then is obvious, the statement to the thief on the cross is a typo of translation when you look at the scriptures in the right context. If we read it in the original context of the language,

Jesus said “Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (future reference)

Anyone who heard Him would know that he was saying it “Today” so why would Jesus make such an obvious and dumb statement. The answer is He wouldn’t.

 

[adrift]

These men are considered Popes today – but the church at Rome did not have central governing authority during this early period. These men were bishops of Rome.

That is what the Pope is the Bishop of Rome

Can you cite authority for this claim? To my knowledge even Clement himself never claimed this. The only one known to be consecrated by Peter was Ignatius.

The Founding of Christendom-Warren H. Carroll
Page 448-452

What significance does this offer? He was the bishop of Antioch (not Rome) and was consecrated bishop not pope?
These were the Popes while he lived and he acknowledged them as such. Since you make the claim that they were not Popes it is your burden of proof to prove it. History is against you.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

I wanna play! :bible1:
:twocents:
uh,…I don’t know what ya’ll r talkin bout…?
But,the heading says,HOW DO CATHOLICS EXPLAIN
1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrews 7:26.
aint that right?
Sounds to me that ya’ll explain it all complicated like.
.
Ifn ya do’t mind,can I give it a shot?

I think it sez…
There is one God(thats BIG DADDY!to you,mister!)
and there is one dude who can talk to BIG DADDY who has put His butt on the line for you!!!HARDCORE!!!And He puts in a good word for you,see?
And His name is(whispering comes I’m afraid the romans or the priests would here me…)his name is Jesus…sshhhsh. be quiet.

And Hebrews 7:26
And it’s a good thing that He’s on our side(cuz BIG DADDY is for real!)And this dude ain’t never done nuthin wrong,man.
His record is so clean man,…He is soo righteous,…it is so far beyond your wildest imagining could be about love and beauty and GRACE,man,cuz we don’t deserve it,man!
and you just cant,…you just cant fathom it!!!

I mean,…I’m just sayin…?
y’know?

 

[adrift]

There was no superiority among the disciples, in fact Jesus cut that up the first time it became an issue among them.

Jesus taught the Apostles by example that they were servants but that does not negate the fact that he also made Peter the leader. To be a leader is not to be superior it is not the same thing.

 

[Chancellor]

Well, let me help you correct that statement by showing you in the Bible, because sometimes we didn’t come across the information even though its there.

Jesus’ Disciples said in Luke 24:32 “And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Ok, David says in Psalms 138:2 - “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”

If there’s still confusion, then listen to Jesus’ own words then and lets obey his command:
John 5:39 - “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”

Jesus is the living expression of the Word of God. But since you and I can’t see him physically, we’re commanded to look at him in the Word of God, or like some call it, “The Bible”

No book could contain all that God has to tell us?
Actually, yes it can be done, and it can be summed in this simple text:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” - John 3:16

But since we’re so hard of hearing (myself included), He’s given us the whole of the Holy Record, so we may better understand that. Which explains in detail what it means.

There are more texts to support that all of what Jesus and The Apostles taught was in the Bible, in fact, most of it can easily be found in the Old Testament, since that’s what they used to teach. Protestants don’t worship the Bible, the Bible teaches us how to worship God.

Arglaze

It has come to the point where you are having to disregard what scripture actually teaches in order to defend your limited view of God.

First, you asked how we Catholics explain two scriptures. I have done so from scripture. Since the bible that you claim to hold so sacred has answered you question shouldn’t that be enough?

I have already said that I agree with you that the “word of God” in the Old Testament refers to scripture, but you have chosen to ignore the fact that in the New Testament “Word of God” only refers to Jesus. Understanding the difference between a God who is revealed in scripture and a God who is revealed face-to-face in human form is to understand what the incarnation is about. It’s why Paul said that the “letter kills but the Spirit gives life”.

Since your question has been answered I invite you to respond to my answer. If it is wrong, please show me. If it is right just say so, then we can discuss another point.

May the living God set you free. I will try to respond to you respectfully but let’s courageously stay with the point and see where God leads us.

Blessings

Chancellor

No Catholic will ever believe that the fullness of God’s message to humanity would fit in a book.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Adrift:

I’ve studied the pope question back and forth & during the first nearly two centuries of the church it is rather clear that there was no central governing authority. If there was a pope at Rome who claimed control over Christianity the Greeks and Turks (or any Christians outside of Rome for that matter) were unaware of it.

This is simply back writing history. The church can claim whatever it wants to and then demand that I reach back in time & prove them wrong? Look, believe it if you want to, no sweat off my back. I just ain’t buying it.

 

[Arglaze]

You are equating Paradise with the presence of God but they are not the same.
Paradise is the place where those souls waited for the heavens to be opened.

Pretty bold statement. Can you give us some Word of God that shows that “Paradise is the place where souls wait for the heavens to be opened”?

The bible states that Jesus
This is where both He and the thief went to bring the Good News to those who had died.

This is a bold statement and I can kind of see why you’d reach to that conclusion if you believe what you do, but the scriptures don’t support this.

There’s no record of Jesus and the thief going to paradise to preach ‘them’ (whoever that may be, since the dead know nothing according to Ecclesiastes) the good news?

If you meant what Peter wrote (in 1 Peter 3:18-19), that’s not the correct context of what he said. And why would Peter call Paradise a prison, being that Paradise is where the tree of Life is, which is in heaven in the presence of God and in front of His throne.
Read the following scripture:

Revelation 2:7 - “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.”

Revelation 22:1-2 - “And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.”

Clearly then, neither of them could have gone to Paradise when Jesus died on Friday. Since you can’t go there and not see the Father. Since Paradise is where the Father is.
After Jesus’ resurrected, then he went to Paradise, which is in the presence of God according to the afore mentioned texts.

Anyone who heard Him would know that he was saying it “Today” so why would Jesus make such an obvious and dumb statement. The answer is He wouldn’t.

You are right he wouldn’t. That’s why the correct statement is “Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (future reference)
In conclusion, You can’t go to Paradise and not pass in front of the presence of God, for Paradise is where God is. Jesus after resurrecting went to Paradise sometime between the time he spoke to Mary and the time he saw his disciples later that Sunday.

After Jesus’ resurrection, Stephen, while being stoned, saw Jesus sitting at the Right Hand of God in Paradise.

Acts 7:55-56 - “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”

I don’t know how else to show the clearness of the scriptures regarding this. Only The Holy Spirit can lead you into the truth of this matter through the study of the scriptures.

 

[East_and_West]

Adrift:

I’ve studied the pope question back and forth & during the first nearly two centuries of the church it is rather clear that there was no central governing authority. If there was a pope at Rome who claimed control over Christianity the Greeks and Turks (or any Christians outside of Rome for that matter) were unaware of it.

This is simply back writing history. The church can claim whatever it wants to and then demand that I reach back in time & prove them wrong? Look, believe it if you want to, no sweat off my back. I just ain’t buying it.

Its there. You just choose not to see it.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. **For with this Church[Rome], because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, **that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

 

[sola_scriptura]

Its there. You just choose not to see it.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. **For with this Church[Rome], because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, **that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

I know I must be blinded — golly us poor misguided protestants? Yada Yada Yada …

 

[East_and_West]

I know I must be blinded — golly us poor misguided protestants? Yada Yada Yada …

Well, you do follow a man made religion. That is what I would call misguided.

 

[Arglaze]

Jesus taught the Apostles by example that they were servants but that does not negate the fact that he also made Peter the leader. To be a leader is not to be superior it is not the same thing.

Huh? Yes I agree with you, but I was writing that as an explanation to what someone else wrote. Peter was the main organizer and the one through whom the Holy Spirit kind of gave structure to the church in those days. I haven’t negated Peter’s role in the building of the church.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Well, you do follow a man made religion. That is what I would call misguided.

yeah yeah yeah … I’ve heard it all b4, sticks & stones that’s all you got.

 

[adrift]

Adrift:

I’ve studied the pope question back and forth & during the first nearly two centuries of the church it is rather clear that there was no central governing authority. If there was a pope at Rome who claimed control over Christianity the Greeks and Turks (or any Christians outside of Rome for that matter) were unaware of it.

This is simply back writing history. The church can claim whatever it wants to and then demand that I reach back in time & prove them wrong? Look, believe it if you want to, no sweat off my back. I just ain’t buying it.

I guess I should have asked rather that assume what you meant by central governing authority.
I assumed you meant that the Bishop of Rome was not looked to as the authority. There is definite evidence that this is true. If you say that it is clear it is not. For instance, Pope Clement I wrote to the church in Corinth directing its members to end a revolt and he did this with authority in a manner that no challenge to his authority was anticipates. Now you may dispute this but you do so on your word only.

 

[adrift]

Huh? Yes I agree with you, but I was writing that as an explanation to what someone else wrote. Peter was the main organizer and the one through whom the Holy Spirit kind of gave structure to the church in those days. I haven’t negated Peter’s role in the building of the church.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[East_and_West]

yeah yeah yeah … I’ve heard it all b4, sticks & stones that’s all you got.

I’m not sure why you are being so cavalier about the fact that Luther and Calvin just made up a religion and that you follow that made up religion. I would think you would take this more seriously.