I think ALL Christians Can Unite On This!

[schaick]

Absolutely not.

You acknowledged, right here on this thread, that you accept as God’s Word “those that heard the stories directly from Christ.” That’s exactly what Sacred Tradition is, schaick.

You may not call it Sacred Tradition–you actually have no term for it–but that’s what it is.

It’s like when you’re trying to evangelize to a Muslim, and he’s been recusant to your *apologia *for months, and then he finally says, “Well, yes, God could have become man, and in fact He did this in Jesus Christ, but that is a very different thing from the Incarnation.”

Ok. If the Muslim doesn’t want to call it the “Incarnation” but believes that God did become a man and this man is Jesus Christ, well, then, you can pat yourself on the back (along with giving props to the Holy Spirit, of course! ) for being able to convince this Muslim of the truth, even if he doesn’t acknowledge use of the word. He has conceded that concept, and that’s HUGE!

You are making no sense. You are right it doesn’t matter what the word is** it is the definition, the concept that matters.**

The definition of Catholic Sacred Tradition includes newly developed doctrines that did not exist in the early Church. Some didn’t exist until thousands of years kater. There is nothing that shows Catholic tradition was passed down from generation to generations.

You can call it what you want but the oral tradition that was passed down to the next generation and then recorded in a concrete form lead to Scripture is not the same as whatever it was that leads to Catholic Sacred Tradition.

Where exactly is this secret teaching that Jesus gave the Disciples that they did not record? That only the Catholic Church has access to? Can you prove man has not twisted the unwritten secret teachings?

I can prove that oral Tradition that became Scripture has not been corupted.

CopticChristian- we will have to agree to disagree I see the concepts in Scripture.

 

[CopticChristian]

You are making no sense. You are right it doesn’t matter what the word is** it is the definition, the concept that matters.**

 

[PRmerger]

The definition of Catholic Sacred Tradition includes newly developed doctrines that did not exist in the early Church.

Ah. So here’s one reason why you’re not Catholic yet. You* think *you know what it is that Catholicism teaches, and that’s what you object to…however, it seems that you are actually objecting to a false image of Catholicism.

The definition of Sacred Tradition does not include newly developed doctrines.

Now that you have come to understand that the only reason you believe that Hebrews, Philemon, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc etc etc are inspired and that the Didache, Gospel of Thomas, Odes of Solomon, etc etc etc are not is because of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church…(you stated you believed that here), we are at a good place.

The Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church is nothing more and nothing less than what you stated here: "Those that heard the stories directly from Christ " proclaimed such, and these “stories” were preserved and promulgated by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

Where exactly is this secret teaching that Jesus gave the Disciples that they did not record? That only the Catholic Church has access to?

I dunno.

This is a peculiar objection that I can’t refute, any more than you could if a Muslim said, “Where’s the secret teachings that God gave to Christians that only Christians have access to?”

The answer to you and to the Muslim: “There *are *no secret teachings and I’m not sure why you would think there are.”

I can prove that oral Tradition that became Scripture has not been corupted.

Not that I disagree with you–for you are quite Catholic to say that the oral Tradition that became Scripture has not been corrupted–but can you prove this?

And again, I am heartened to see you acknowledge that there is such a thing as “oral tradition that became Scripture.”

You, again, have admitted something HUGE, schaick. There is an oral Tradition that is God’s Word. That’s a HUGE admission. :extrahappy:

Now, you’ll have to provide a Scripture verse that says that** all **of this oral Tradition was committed to Scripture. Book, chapter and verse, please.

 

[schaick]

Ah. So here’s one reason why you’re not Catholic yet. You* think *you know what it is that Catholicism teaches, and that’s what you object to…however, it seems that you are actually objecting to a false image of Catholicism.

The definition of Sacred Tradition does not include newly developed doctrines.

Now that you have come to understand that the only reason you believe that Hebrews, Philemon, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc etc etc are inspired and that the Didache, Gospel of Thomas, Odes of Solomon, etc etc etc are not is because of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church…(you stated you believed that here), we are at a good place.

The Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church is nothing more and nothing less than what you stated here: "Those that heard the stories directly from Christ " proclaimed such, and these “stories” were preserved and promulgated by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The doctrines are new, they appear hundreds to a century later after the eyewitness accounts to the miracles and prophecies fufilled, there is no trail of evidence. If the Catholic Church really was the author of the Bible it really goofed. Didn’t they realize that it is the new doctrines that divde the Catholic Church? There is as much division in any one parish as there are different branches ofthe universal Church.

We know the Holy Spirit didn’t fail. We have those words in the Holy Bible.:
1 Corinthians 2
12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

Peter was never a pope and never infallible, Peter was never Vicar of Christ the Holy Spirit has always been. A pope being the Vicar of Christ and not the Vicar of Peter was declared by a Pope circa 1000AD.

Ephesians 5
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

The first church was established in Jerusalem not Rome. There are simply no eyewitnesses of the miracles and prophecies fufilledno recorded history and more important no GOD inspired history supporting surrounding the newly deveoped doctrines.

It wasn’t until the Council of Trent that Tradition was even defined and only as a rebutal to the reformation.

We will have to agree that we simply disagree.

 

[schaick]

I dunno.

This is a peculiar objection that I can’t refute, any more than you could if a Muslim said, “Where’s the secret teachings that God gave to Christians that only Christians have access to?”

The answer to you and to the Muslim: “There *are *no secret teachings and I’m not sure why you would think there are.”

Not that I disagree with you–for you are quite Catholic to say that the oral Tradition that became Scripture has not been corrupted–but can you prove this?

And again, I am heartened to see you acknowledge that there is such a thing as “oral tradition that became Scripture.”

You, again, have admitted something HUGE, schaick. There is an oral Tradition that is God’s Word. That’s a HUGE admission. :extrahappy:

Now, you’ll have to provide a Scripture verse that says that** all **of this oral Tradition was committed to Scripture. Book, chapter and verse, please.

No Christian has ever disputed that there was an oral tradition, but it lasted during the lifetime of an eyewitness or a generation and then written down. Do you realize that the Gospel story is told in the Old Testament?

lol! I don’t have to do anything- it is the new doctrines that are lacking. GOD has supplied evidence for inspiration of Scripture. It is man that can not supply evidence for their traditions-prove they are from GOD.

Are you saying the Holy Spirit would allow an important bit of information concerning our salvation to be left out of Scripture - left to oral tradition and possible corruption? lol!! ok that is why you are Catholic and I am not. Which leads us back to why we know there is no transformation of the bread and wine-no discernible miraculous change.

Again we will have to agree to disagree.

Hebrews 2
3…This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

 

[CrazyRachel]

Schaik, I would hardly describe the way you are going on as “agreeing to disagree.” Why do people like you come to a Catholic forum only ask questions then throw the answers given to you back in people’s faces with snide remarks, telling them that they make no sense and trying to make them look bad by saying they’re questioning your inteligence? I’ll tell you why, becasue you’re a mean spirited, small minded person with nothing better to do than stir the muck and create arguments. And dont give me that “actually Im debating” rhetoric because it doesnt wash with me. Im all for a good ecumenical debate, but this isnt debate. This is childish feet stamping. Accept this is a Catholic forum and if you dont like what we believe then tough luck. Your angry rants will not change our minds.

 

[CrazyRachel]

I dunno.

LOL! That is the best answer I’ve heard all day And with regaurds to these apparent secrets that Jesus gave to the deciples that only the Catholic church has access to and wont share with anyone else… I dunno either. I’ve never even heard of that one. Maybe they’re confusing it with Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter and calling him his rock upon which he shall build his church, but thats no secret and as far as Im aware its in all translations of the Bible, and maybe someone decided to take this passage and the Catholic belief that this is what made Peter the first pope and twisted it into a roumor of yet another secret Da Vinci Code style document we’re supposed to be hiding from the world! The paranoia is quite laughable really. Again, you gave my favourite answer of the day. It was concise and to the point and it made me smile. Good one mate.

 

[PRmerger]

The doctrines are new, they appear hundreds to a century later after the eyewitness accounts to the miracles and prophecies fufilled, there is no trail of evidence.

Please provide an example of a doctrine that you believe to be new.

And remember, the Trinity was not defined for centuries* after* the eyewitness accounts and oral testimonies (that is, Sacred Tradition) of the Apostles. So if you’re going to claim that a doctrine is new, you’re going to have to claim that the Trinity is a new doctrine as well.

 

[PRmerger]

No Christian has ever disputed that there was an oral tradition, but it lasted during the lifetime of an eyewitness or a generation and then written down.

Please provide the passage in Scripture that tells you this. Book, chapter and verse, please.

Otherwise, this is going to be ANOTHER fallible, man-made tradition that you’ve been following.

IOW, you heard a man say it, who heard another man say it, who perhaps heard a pastor say it, who read it somewhere, but** none of these men ever read “oral tradition is God’s Word but it lasted only during the lifetime of an eyewitness” in a single page of the Bible.**

That’s what a man-made tradition is.

 

[CopticChristian]

No Christian has ever disputed that there was an oral tradition, but it lasted during the lifetime of an eyewitness or a generation and then written down. Do you realize that the Gospel story is told in the Old Testament?

lol! I don’t have to do anything- it is the new doctrines that are lacking. GOD has supplied evidence for inspiration of Scripture. It is man that can not supply evidence for their traditions-prove they are from GOD.

Are you saying the Holy Spirit would allow an important bit of information concerning our salvation to be left out of Scripture - left to oral tradition and possible corruption? lol!! ok that is why you are Catholic and I am not. Which leads us back to why we know there is no transformation of the bread and wine-no discernible miraculous change.

Again we will have to agree to disagree.

Hebrews 2
3…This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

In many and various ways God wrote to us? Huh…Oh…

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe

1Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. 2For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; 3How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 4God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

5For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

10For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

Did you read, hear, listen? You yourself believe that you must hear someone read Scripture to incite you to confess with your lips and believe with your heart…Speaking, hearing, Listening…no where do I see reading/writing…signs and wonders…gifts of the Holy Spirit like our Baptism and Eucharist…yes we believe in signs and wonders like the Eucharist…shamefully you read but do not understand what you read.

 

[Jonatello]

I am a Christian who is searching around currently, but I pray for the day when we all will fulfill the prayer of our Lord, that we all might be as one. So I decided to make a list of the things that, I believe, might unite us.

#1. God is made up of The Father, Son, And The Holy Spirit, but there is one God. In Other words, The Holy Trinity.

#2. Jesus, The Son Of God, came down to earth, was Born of the Virgin Mary, Died For Our sins, was buried, and on the third day rose from the dead, defeating death and Satan. He ascended into Heaven and now sits at the right hand of God The Father almighty, From where He shall return for His Church someday.

#3. There is a Heaven and a Hell ( and a Purgatory for some denominations) but to sum it all up, there is judgment after death.

#4. Morals A.K.A sin do not change. Things like abortion, homosexuality, lying, cheating, stealing, etc… Do not change just because society thinks it should change.

5#. The Bible is very important to Christianity (Whether you believe in sola scriptura or not).

6#. We are to love our neighbor, help our fellowman, spread the gospel, and participate in our government and society. I believe its our duty as Christians.

7#. The ONLY WAY to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Not Buddha, Mohammad, etc.

So these things I believe, can not only unite us, but keep the liberal Christians on the run, you know the ones who pretty much say “if it offence thee, rip it out” when looking at the Bible. The ones who go around saying there is no hell, homosexuality and abortion are just fine, there’s no such thing as sin, pretty much everything that is contrary to scripture. They annoy me. Anyways, I hope we can unite one day, and I don’t mean create a new Church or anything like that, I mean keep your traditions and your beliefs, but unite on what unites us all, because to tell you the truth, I see dark days coming on the horizon. The world is becoming more secular and hatful towered us, and Christians are being muzzled and persecuted, like those Catholic adoption agencies in MASS. That had to Close because they would not allow same-sex couples to adopt, and with this government, I feel more is to come.

I think of us like soldiers, our uniforms are all different colors (different denominations) But all we do is fight with one another, without realizing that on all our uniforms is a cross, That’s what unites us, And as we fight, we don’t see the devil and his army march right past us, even slaying some of us in the process. So If you have more ideas on things that can unify us, please do post, also post your opinions and thoughts. Thanks so much, and may the whole World be United to Christ, and May HE Bless you all!

P.S. Sorry For any mistakes or anything like that. I was typing fast and am 17 so my mind is all over the place, LOL!

I would only partially agree with #4

I’d say there is a universal morality aka a “moral compass” in which North is always North.

But depending on the circumstance, taking a left may be more or less north.

Thus, there could be circumstances which make something that would normally be considered wrong okay. Conservative Christians often seem maybe even too comfortable invoking this “situational” element of morality an awful lot when it comes to murder, withholding charity, war, manifest destiny, etc, which amazes me because those are areas where i personally see very little circumstantial wiggle room.

But if we can see wiggle room in bombing Nagasaki, i’m sure we can find it in lying or stealing.

 

[CopticChristian]

I would only partially agree with #4

I’d say there is a universal morality aka a “moral compass” in which North is always North.

But depending on the circumstance, taking a left may be more or less north.

Thus, there could be circumstances which make something that would normally be considered wrong okay. Conservative Christians often seem maybe even too comfortable invoking this “situational” element of morality an awful lot when it comes to murder, withholding charity, war, manifest destiny, etc, which amazes me because those are areas where i personally see very little circumstantial wiggle room.

But if we can see wiggle room in bombing Nagasaki, i’m sure we can find it in lying or stealing.

Try looking at wiggle room for the Dispensationalist Protestant “christian zionists”.