It is Written

  • Thread starter Thread starter Buzzard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
RNRobert:
True, but the teachings of and about Jesus were disseminated orally for the first couple decades. The OT did prophecy the coming of Jesus, which was important in preaching to the Jews. However, as time went on, more and more converts were Gentiles, many of them who knew little about the Jewish religion, and probably couldn’t have cared less about OT prophecies.
Click to expand...
I agree almost completely. Given Paul’s writings, we know that Paul used the Scriptures and the prophecies concerning the Christ to show Gentiles that Jesus was indeed the Christ. So, given the evidence there, I would say that the Gentiles did care - because it was through the OT prophecies that they would come to know for a fact that Jesus was the Christ, and salvation, then, came upon all men.
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
I agree almost completely. Given Paul’s writings, we know that Paul used the Scriptures and the prophecies concerning the Christ to show Gentiles that Jesus was indeed the Christ. So, given the evidence there, I would say that the Gentiles did care - because it was through the OT prophecies that they would come to know for a fact that Jesus was the Christ, and salvation, then, came upon all men.
Click to expand...
Yes, many Gentiles were “God-fearers”- those worshipped God and even attended synagogue, but who were not circumcised and did not follow the jewish dietatry law (I think they were referred to as *metuentes-*I’m not sure). However, did you notice that when Paul preached to the Athenians he didn’t mention a word of OT prophecy. Instead he quoted their own philosphers to prove his point.
 
anybody have the feeling that Buzzard and excatholic are related somehow? Buzzard showed up the same day excatholic made his/her last post before being suspended. :hmmm:

I don’t think they are the same person, but something seems fishy here.
 
I think he’s very brave! Well done Buzzard!

My personal view is that if you believe in God & Jesus, and that God is the omnipetant creator and ruler of all then he knew everything that would happen after Jesus died and that Catholicism would be the the core for the faithfull and that some would fall away during the reformation, etc, etc, etc.

So saying that the Church has got it wrong from the off, is the same to me as saying God made a mistake and all the work he did was for nothing, because we just all went off on our own path.

Know what I mean?
🙂
 
40.png
RichSpidizzy:
anybody have the feeling that Buzzard and excatholic are related somehow? Buzzard showed up the same day excatholic made his/her last post before being suspended. :hmmm:

I don’t think they are the same person, but something seems fishy here.
Click to expand...
Buzzard’s profile says non-denom, but I have strong suspicions that he is a Seventh Day Adventist. On one thread he quoted one of E.G.White’s ‘prophecies.’ forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23234 (post 2)

In several other posts he makes references to the ‘first day church’ that we (catholics) belong to, and makes comparisons between the Catholic Church and the ‘Whore of babylon’ in Revelation.

I guess he’s here to point out the error of our ways.:rolleyes:
 
In the years that I’ve enjoyed discussing Christianity with Buzz, I’ve concluded that Buzzard’s “denomination of one” is adventist in leanings, but he doesn’t cotton much to the Seventh Day Adventists either. 😉
 
40.png
RNRobert:
Yes, many Gentiles were “God-fearers”- those worshipped God and even attended synagogue, but who were not circumcised and did not follow the jewish dietatry law (I think they were referred to as *metuentes-*I’m not sure). However, did you notice that when Paul preached to the Athenians he didn’t mention a word of OT prophecy. Instead he quoted their own philosphers to prove his point.
Click to expand...
That’s very true. He said in 1 Cor. 9:19
  1. For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
  2. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
  3. To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
  4. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
He tried to identify with his audience in order to get their attention. Christ did the same thing in parables. He used imagery and words that would be common ground between Himself and His hearers.
 
Exporter said:
The poster idenified as “THE BUZZARD” is a nondenominational person…see his Profile.

He needs to condense his thesis.
Click to expand...

I believe that “Buzzard” is also coming from the forum “Former Catholics for Christ,” which is rabidly anti-Catholic. Please treat him with the charity - there is no charity on their board.
 
Detroit Sue:
I believe that “Buzzard” is also coming from the forum “Former Catholics for Christ,” which is rabidly anti-Catholic. Please treat him with the charity - there is no charity on their board.
Click to expand...
While this is off-topic, and I ask the indulgence of our friends for digressing a bit, the website referred above called “Former Catholics For Christ” is a snakepit for Catholics. The hateful behaviour of “Christians” there, especially towards Catholics should not be be repeated here, despite our differences with these people. There is indeed a moderator named “1stBuzzard” in that site, although I’m not certain he / she is the same person.

Gerry 🙂
 
I think what many people who attack oral tradition forget is that the Old Testament itself is the product of oral tradition. Take for example the stories in Genesis. They weren’t written down at the time they happened. They were passed down by word of mouth for centuries before being committed to paper. The same could probably be said for the rest of the Torah.
There are other examples as well.

Several times in the book of Judges (18:1, 18:6, 19:1, 21:25) we are told “There was no king in Israel.” Considering that Israel’s first king, Saul, did not start his rule until after the judgeship of Samuel (who had been judge since he was a young man), this probably means the stories were passed down by word of mouth for several decades before being written down.

Here is another example:
Formerly in Israel, anyone who went to enquire of God would say, ‘Come let us go to the seer’; for the one who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer (1 Samuel 9:9).

Again, we have evidence that the sacred writer is living a considerable amount of time after the events he is writing about.
 
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=318685&postcount=48
Post #48
40.png
RNRobert:
I think what many people who attack oral tradition forget is that the Old Testament itself is the product of oral tradition. Take for example the stories in Genesis. They weren’t written down at the time they happened. They were passed down by word of mouth for centuries before being committed to paper. The same could probably be said for the rest of the Torah.
Click to expand...
No Robert;
they were not
"Just Oral Tradition"

The writters of the Old Testament were inspired by the Holy Ghost,
and he full well knew 1st hand what was and what wasn’t truth
what did and what didn’t happen

Now as for the Prophets
~{2Peter 1:20}~
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Robert;
it wasn’t just their opinion. tradition, nor their private interpretation,
but they spoke and wrote as he directed
Thats not “Oral Tradition” and for these reasons
~{Proverbs 1:1}~
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;
2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;
3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;
4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.

6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation;
the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

~{Proverbs 22:19}~

That thy trust may be in the LORD, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee.
20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth;
that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

Same as Luke writes
~{Luke 1:1}~
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.

Thats not just “Traditions”
 
40.png
Buzzard:
No Robert;
they were not
"Just Oral Tradition"

The writters of the Old Testament were inspired by the Holy Ghost,
and he full well knew 1st hand what was and what wasn’t truth
what did and what didn’t happen
  • Now as for the Prophets
    ~{2Peter 1:20}~
    Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
    but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Robert;
it wasn’t just their opinion. tradition, nor their private interpretation,
but they spoke and wrote as he directed
Thats not “Oral Tradition” and for these reasons
Same as Luke writes
  • ~{Luke 1:1}~
    to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
    4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
    wherein thou hast been instructed.
Thats not just “Traditions”
Click to expand...
In Acts 20:35, Paul says, “…keep in mind the Lord Jesus who himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Q. Which Gospel, and which chapter and verse, is Paul quoting from?

A. None of them. That saying of Jesus is not written in any of them.

Q. He never knew Jesus when he was on Earth, so how could he have known it?

A. It was passed down by word of mouth.

You seem to highly suspect of all that is not written, but people have been passing information by word of mouth for millenia. You also seem to forget that until the advent of the printing press most people were illiterate (which I think is still true of 50% of the world’s population) and that books were beyond the reach of most people.

BTW, I asked you 4 questions on post #15 of this thread (and again on post #2 of the “Which Bible, Whose canon?” thread) that
MUST be answered by the Bible if the Bible is the sole rule of faith. You have yet to answer them (as well as the questions I asked on posts #33 and #35 of this thread).

Also, Buzzard, how do you know that your Bible is the ‘bible’ written by the Apostles? Their original writings have turned to dust. What you have is a copy of a copy of a copy, etc… There was no printing press in those days, so mistakes could have crept in, or changes could have been made to support a particular agenda. Also, there was only ONE church for the first 1500 years of Christianity, and that was the Catholic Church. It was that church that preserved the Bible for you to read- even the ringleader of the Deformation, Martin Luther, said as much.

You will probably tell me the Holy Spirit preserved the Bible. To that I say AMEN. But why could’t he preserve oral tradition as well.

The Holy Spirit can preserve oral teaching just as well. Read 2 Thessalonians 214 Paul considered his oral teaching as binding as his written ones.
 
40.png
Buzzard:
Thats not just “Traditions”
Click to expand...
Hi Buzzard,

As you said, “Not justs Traditions” and you are right. Not just traditions and not just Scripture. But together traditions and scripture interpreted with authority. This authority must be singled out and able to correct those who have gone astray by changing, missinterpreting, etc. what they might have heard from the Apostles or anyone else. This authority can only be claimed by the Catholic Church that since the 1st century has been correcting errors and affirming the flok in the Faith.
You claim that the Church is guided only by what was heard from the Apostles and that it somehow went wrong right from the start because it make use of Oral Tradition as well as of scripture. Then how do you explain that same “apostate” church sudenly getting it right in deciding which books to include in the New Testamen?

I believe you need to study, in addition to your Bible, some history. I agree that everything in the Bible is Truth, but not everything that is truth in in the Bible. History, as a science can give you a greater insight to what you find in the Bible as well as to why the Catholic Church is the true interpreter of scripture. Note that Paul, Peter and the rest of the Apostle whose letters or writings are in the Bible were writing with the authority of the Catholic Church, not of their own, for as you and me they have no authority of their own, but the authority that they were given. By whom? By The Holyt Spirit through his Church. That is why they met and discussed the issues in hand and came to an agreement. The Catholic Church still follows the same procedure and interesting enough, they still agree! I believe this can’t be said of the so many protestant denominations where if anyone want to interpret the bible in his own novel way they just separate and form their own new denomination.

It really is just common sence. If you want to just close your eyes and keep on trying to squeese something out of scripture for your own agenda, that is a different case. But if you really are interested in the TRUTH, investigate a little. Let the commentaries in your Bible rest for a while and learn some history.

I hope you really commit your self to knowing the Truth. I know if you want you’ll find it and if we can help, we’ll be pleased. But ultimately it will be the Holy Spirit to show you, but remember you have to listen. Maybe He has been talking to you all this time as you read the answers of our brothers.

Peace of Christ be with you.
J.C.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top