I have true Peace

  • Thread starter Thread starter kaycee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
PhilNeri:
Matthew talks of Jesus fulfilling a prophesy. “And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled. ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt 2:23) This prophesy is found nowhere in the Old Testament. It is an oral tradition that carries the same weight as written tradition. It is accepted as just as authoritative as those prophesies that were written down.
Click to expand...
Jerome says that Isa 11:1 is the Old Testament prophecy: "Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah. For in the place where we read and translate, (Isa 53) “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,” in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, “**There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.” ** " (Jerome, Letter 47:7)

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia gives us the answer: “In the manuscripts of the New Testament, the name [Nazareth] occurs in a great orthographical variety, such as Nazaret, Nazareth, Nazara, Nazarat, and the like. In the time of Eusebius and St. Jerome (Onomasticon), its name was Nazara (in modern Arabic, en Nasirah), which therefore, seems to be the correct name; in the New Testament we find its derivatives written Nazarenos, or Nazoraios, but never Nazaretaios. The etymology of Nazara is neser, which means “a shoot”. The Vulgate renders this word by flos, “flower”, in the Prophecy of Isaiah 11:1, which is applied to the Saviour. St. Jerome (Epist., xlvii, “Ad Marcellam”) gives the same interpretation to the name of the town.” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Nazareth)
 
40.png
PhilNeri:
Why, yes He does!

“The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you,” (Matt 23:2-3) The seat of Moses is never, ever, not even once mentioned in the Old Testament. It is a tradition, yet this was an accepted teaching about the authority of the Jewish leaders. Jesus Himself affirms this tradition! He tells the crowds to “practice and observe whatever they tell you.”
Click to expand...
Moses’ seat refers to the seat in front of the synagogue, on which the teacher of the law sat while reading the Scriptures. Its a figure of speach for a teacher of the Law (Torah). For Jesus to say, listen to them when they teach from the Law is quite unremarkable.
 
reference, please/

BTW - nothing you have posted have been valid reasons for leaving and rejecting the Church Jesus founded. What is really bothering you?
 
40.png
DeFide:
  1. Paul authoritatively interpreted what the Old Testament Scriptures meant! He didn’t just set down the Old Testament in silence and let the Scripture interpret itself (as if that were possible). This Berean’s passage does not teach that you must go by the Bible alone. It doesn’t even mention the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Acts 17:11 “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, **examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” Pauls commendation was for testing the message he gave against Old Testament Scripture. Scripture was their ultimate authority! **
  1. Jesus shows HIS teaching authority OVER personal interpretation of scripture and condemns erroneous personal interpretation. Here’s what you left out:
    You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
    They made the wrong interpretation!
Click to expand...
**Jesus said nothing about interpretation, He said “you refuse to come to me.” ** I seems the inference is. You have read the Truth and you refuse to come to ME. NOT, You made the wrong interpretation and refuse to come to ME. which makes more sense?
  1. Good tradition:
Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men
1Pet 1:25 - God’s eternal word = word preached to you
1Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached Rom 10:17 - faith come from what is heard
Mk 16:15 - go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you
1Cor 11:2 - commends them for following Apostolic tradition Can you give me an example of one oral tradition being referred to above that is not written in scripture?

  1. ‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).
The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal.
Click to expand...

:confused: Sorry, the quote talks about sinning against another brother. It certainly is not talking about discussing interpretations of scripture.

Peace <><
 
I think that you have been presented the view that traditions are some sort of secret thing that the Catholic Church can’t prove. I have seen this sort of thing on some non-catholic websites saying something to the effect of, if there is traditions that were somehow not written down then the Church should write them down, then state that the Church can’t. Which I really believe is a mis-representation of tradition in the main sense, here is an example for you to understand.

An example of some oral tradition for you, the understanding that the Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus Christ. The Church has understood the meaning of the Eucharist in this sense, this also fits in with scripture (it might not fit in with the Baptist interpretation) but that is another discussion.

Now that is the reason for oral tradition to understand the Scriptures, which is understandable because you see what happens when people go with their own understanding. I already gave some examples before in referencing several different groups with conflicting interpretations based on the Bible.

You can certainly disagree with our interpretation as that is your personal interpretation, but you cannot say we are wrong as that invalidates your position. Unless you can claim you personally have an infallible interpretation of scripture.

If you would like me to try and further clarify oral tradition I can, I love the share. I would again suggest if you are truly looking for truth I would steer away from unbiased sources, I hope you look at secular and Catholic sources to see if they stand up to scrutiny.

God Bless you Kaycee,
Scylla
 
40.png
kaycee:
Acts 17:11 “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, **examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” Pauls commendation was for testing the message he gave against Old Testament Scripture. Scripture was their ultimate authority! **

**Jesus said nothing about interpretation, He said “you refuse to come to me.” **I seems the inference is. You have read the Truth and you refuse to come to ME. NOT, You made the wrong interpretation and refuse to come to ME. which makes more sense?
Can you give me an example of one oral tradition being referred to above that is not written in scripture?
:confused: Sorry, the quote talks about sinning against another brother. It certainly is not talking about discussing interpretations of scripture.

Peace <><
Click to expand...
  1. Nowhere in scripture does it say or imply that you must go by the Bible alone as your sole final authority. If the passage you cited said that those in Thessalonica went by the “Scripture and Scripture alone” (which it doesn’t) then you’d have to go by the unnamed portions of the Old Testament alone. Do you?
  2. You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
    This implies that going by scripture, they failed to recognize that Jesus is the way to eternal life. Jesus doesn’t say that they came to the right interpretation, but simply chose to disregard it.
  3. An oral tradition not in Scripture: The canon of the Bible (which books belong and which books don’t).
  4. Heresy (a grave sin) is related to scripture interpretation. Mt 18:15-18 says the Church is the final authority. The same statement cannot be found regarding the role of the Bible.
 
40.png
kaycee:
Acts 17:11 “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, **examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” Pauls commendation was for testing the message he gave against Old Testament Scripture. Scripture was their ultimate authority! **
Click to expand...
This verse does not say that the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone. The Bereans accepted the oral teachings from Paul as God’s Word before searching the Scriptures.
 
**“A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines: also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make spoil through philosophy and vain deceit. The Greeks on the one hand draw men away by their smooth tongue, for honey droppeth from a harlot’s lips: whereas they of the Circumcision deceive those who come to them by means of the Divine Scriptures, which they miserably misinterpret though studying them from childhood to all age, and growing old in ignorance. But the children of heretics, by their good words and smooth tongue, deceive the hearts of the innocent, disguising with the name of Christ as it were with honey the poisoned arrows of their impious doctrines: concerning all of whom together the Lord saith, Take heed lest any man mislead you. This is the reason for the teaching of the Creed and for expositions upon it.” **
***Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:2 (A.D. 350). ***
 
Can you give me an example of one oral tradition being referred to above that is not written in scripture?
:confused: Sorry, the quote talks about sinning against another brother. It certainly is not talking about discussing interpretations of scripture.

Peace <><I can give you Scriptural examples that tell us to abide by Tradition.
We also have the Tradition that Peter was buried in Rome - this is supported by other ECF(s) and their writings but it is not in specifically mentioned in Holy Scripture, which is one of the reasons some Protestants do not believe Peter was our first Pope.

I am not as smart as the others - is this what you mean?
 
40.png
kaycee:
Moses’ seat refers to the seat in front of the synagogue, on which the teacher of the law sat while reading the Scriptures. Its a figure of speach for a teacher of the Law (Torah). For Jesus to say, listen to them when they teach from the Law is quite unremarkable.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the point is that this is never mentioned in the Old Testament, yet is accepted as “unremarkable.” I contend that that is what oral tradition is, a truth that is not revealed in Scripture.
The Bible doesn’t have everything! It says so.

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25
 
40.png
PhilNeri:
Yes, but the point is that this is never mentioned in the Old Testament, yet is accepted as “unremarkable.” I contend that that is what oral tradition is, a truth that is not revealed in Scripture.
The Bible doesn’t have everything! It says so.

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25
Click to expand...
A figure of speech reference to authority is hardly an official office created by Oral tradition!

Is it your contention that the Apostles had binding tradition that is not written in the new testament? Any you can share from Paul, Peter, James, etcc…

To insist that when Paul says “Hold to the traditions your were taught” he means something different than what he writes to the same churches is hard to take seriously.

John 20:31 “But these are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name.”
 
I am not certain if this qualifies as endorsing tradition. Hillel was a great Jewish scholar, who would have died around the time that Jesus was a preteen. One of the stories related about Hillel is similar, but not the exactly the same, as a story told of Jesus.

A gentile, wishing to make fun of the great teacher, came to Hillel and asked him if he could teach him the whole of the Torah standing on one foot. Hillel responded “What is hateful to thee, do not do unto thy follow man, this is the whole law, the rest is commentary.”

The above sounds similar to Jesus’ statement that the two greatest commandments are to Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind. And the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus then adds in Matthew 22:40 **All the law and the writings of the prophets depend on these two commands(**I paraphrasized the first section, which is why I didn’t put it in bold type)

I have always thought that the above similarities meant that Jesus must have been in contact with the Jewish teacher’s students. Pretty cool when you think about it.
 
LSK said:
Can you give me an example of one oral tradition being referred to above that is not written in scripture?
:confused: Sorry, the quote talks about sinning against another brother. It certainly is not talking about discussing interpretations of scripture.

Peace <><I can give you Scriptural examples that tell us to abide by Tradition.
We also have the Tradition that Peter was buried in Rome - this is supported by other ECF(s) and their writings but it is not in specifically mentioned in Holy Scripture, which is one of the reasons some Protestants do not believe Peter was our first Pope.

I am not as smart as the others - is this what you mean?
Click to expand...

I dont believe Peter’s burial place is part of what is considered “oral tradition” which is believed to be on par with scripture.
 
DeFide said:
1. Nowhere in scripture does it say or imply that you must go by the Bible alone as your sole final authority. If the passage you cited said that those in Thessalonica went by the “Scripture and Scripture alone” (which it doesn’t) then you’d have to go by the unnamed portions of the Old Testament alone. Do you?
Click to expand...

Joshua 1:8 “This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.”

Prov 30:5,6 “Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. 6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.”

Isa 40:8 - “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”

Ps 119:105 -“Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.”

Ps 138:2- “I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; **For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.” **

God thinks pretty highly of his word, Yes? 😃
  1. You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
    This implies that going by scripture, they failed to recognize that Jesus is the way to eternal life. Jesus doesn’t say that they came to the right interpretation, but simply chose to disregard it.
Click to expand...
It says nothing like that. It says Paul argued from the Scripture for 3 weeks. Sola Scriptura for 3 weeks and a few Jews were saved! Notice there is no mention of the “Moses’ seat” authority here or anywhere else. Then Paul preaches to the Bereans about Jesus from the OLD testament(3 weeks from Scripture in Thes), these recieved the word and tested it against Scripture(Old Testament) gaining a commendation from Paul.
  1. An oral tradition not in Scripture: The canon of the Bible (which books belong and which books don’t).
Click to expand...
God wrote the Canon and the Holy Spirit thru the believers recieved Gods word!
  1. Heresy (a grave sin) is related to scripture interpretation. Mt 18:15-18 says the Church is the final authority. The same statement cannot be found regarding the role of the Bible.
Click to expand...
God’s Church would use Scripture alone to Judge what is heresy! What else is there that is God Breathed?

I Corinthians 4:6, Paul says, “Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us you might learn not to go beyond the things which are written
 
40.png
kaycee:
I Corinthians 4:6, Paul says, “Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us you might learn not to go beyond the things which are written
Click to expand...
Oops! I see an unfinished Scripture quote! :tsktsk:

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

Paul is referring to the whole OT, reminding the Corinthians that all Scripture urges us not to be proud or contentious. Puffed up in Greek suggests the swollen inflammation around an infected wound, and may be rendered “arrogant”. (see verses 18, 19; 5:2)
 
40.png
scylla:
An example of some oral tradition for you, the understanding that the Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus Christ. The Church has understood the meaning of the Eucharist in this sense, this also fits in with scripture (it might not fit in with the Baptist interpretation) but that is another discussion.
Click to expand...
This is in scripture! Where is the tradition? :confused:
Now that is the reason for oral tradition to understand the Scriptures, which is understandable because you see what happens when people go with their own understanding. I already gave some examples before in referencing several different groups with conflicting interpretations based on the Bible.
Click to expand...
I thought that was the Holy Spirits Job

Joh 16:13 - "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

1Co 2:12 - 14
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. **But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. **
You can certainly disagree with our interpretation as that is your personal interpretation, but you cannot say we are wrong as that invalidates your position. Unless you can claim you personally have an infallible interpretation of scripture.
Click to expand...
I rely on the God Breathed Scripture’s and the Spirit who promises to teach believers. I have Jesus, Paul, Peter, James and John to teach me!

1Jo 2:27 - As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and **you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, ** and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
If you would like me to try and further clarify oral tradition I can, I love the share. I would again suggest if you are truly looking for truth I would steer away from unbiased sources, I hope you look at secular and Catholic sources to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
God Bless you Kaycee,
Scylla
Click to expand...
I have been looking at many sources and I hope you would also be opened to the Spirits leading about the Sufficiency of Scripture.

Peace <><
 
I have been looking at many sources and I hope you would also be opened to the Spirits leading about the Sufficiency of Scripture.
Click to expand...
Hi kaycee and Peace be with you also…

I am not doubting kaycee that perhaps you may have true peace…I am curious having read some of the Posts in this thread:

Jesus said “thou art Peter The Rock and on This Rock I will build My Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”

The Catholic Church can trace back to Peter…at what stage do the gates of Hell prevail and The Church that traces itself back to Peter loose touch with Truth (The Holy Spirit) and the gates of Hell therefore do prevail and Catholicism is no longer proclaiming Truth…

…just curious. I am not trying to set a trap for you…rather having read some of these Posts I am curious as to what your answer will be …

Genuinely curious…because to date anyway I have not heard an interpretation I could accept…

Regards Barb smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_11.gif
 
Kaycee,

Just wondering how can you have “true peace” when you must constantly question the validity of the Bible.

How do you know which books are written by God in the NT? How can you be certain? Who told you so? Who’s authority are you accepting? Is it God’s or man’s? Are they infallible? If not could a book be there that ought not to? Perhaps you come to this conclusion by yourself? But how do you know you are not wrong?

What if the Spirit only influenced 80% of Scripture but the other 20% is just man made. (Note: 100% correct/similar does not equate to God wrote it; it just means is 100% correct/similar).

You might say, “The Spirit would not have allowed that to happen. The Spirit lead us to the truth”

All Protestants think that way and yet they all have their version of the truth (even about what books are Scripture, yet they can’t all be right). Then you might say “but the difference is only on the small stuff”. Yet it isn’t that small to stop them from separating and dividing, creating their own churches is it?

If through history we can see that there is no unity of interpretation of Holy Scripture by just belief in Christ, why do you think that by holding that same belief there should be unity of acknowledgement of what constitutes Holy Scripture.

Also,

What is the point of belonging to a church that is not infallible? Whatever the pastor says I must question for there is no assurance that he/she is right. Whatever I accept as a belief is not because the church thought it but because I at the end figured it out. At the end you are your own pastor, you must be, otherwise you might just be letting the pastor lead you astray. How can one have peace in such a system where there is no assurance of truth?

Just because you believe in a Christ does not mean you believe in the true Christ.

By the way I recommend you to read “The facts about Luther” by Msgr. Patrick F. O’hare, LL.D. I know is Catholic but facts are facts.

May you find true peace
 
40.png
alexaustralia:
Kaycee,…

…

How do you know which books are written by God in the NT? How can you be certain? Who told you so? Who’s authority are you accepting? Is it God’s or man’s? Are they infallible? If not could a book be there that ought not to? Perhaps you come to this conclusion by yourself? But how do you know you are not wrong?

What if the Spirit only influenced 80% of Scripture but the other 20% is just man made. (Note: 100% correct/similar does not equate to God wrote it; it just means is 100% correct/similar).
Click to expand...
…this is too something I have often wondered. As I understand things and the far more learned than I would be able to give you dates etc., some three or four hundred years after Christ I think it was, The Catholic Church decided from amongst many early Christian writings etc. which would comprise The Bible as the Inspired Word of God and which would be rejected as such.

If one does not accept the Teaching Authority from God of The Catholic Church…how can one be sure that the books etc. that comprise the known Bible are actually inspired books…alternatively that those books The Catholic Church rejected as inspired were not actually inspired?

It is a point that has interested me.

Peace to all no matter your height…

Barb smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_67.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top