Protestant saying hello

[justasking4]

Interesting. The argument of “bible only evidence” is perhaps one of the biggest logical goofs there is. How do you think these stories and traditions were recorded in both the old and new testament? It didn’t drop out of the sky and surely Jesus just didn’t come down to write a book. Speaking of the traditions of men “The sinner’s prayer” strikes me as a modern tradition of man. I must have missed that in the gospels.

Do you believe the Scriptures to be inspired-inerrant?

 

[jonfan]

Do you believe the Scriptures to be inspired-inerrant?

Sure. Do you believe God inspired men to write the scriptures?

 

[justasking4]

Sure. Do you believe God inspired men to write the scriptures?

Yes. Then how does it follow that “the argument of “bible only evidence” is perhaps one of the biggest logical goofs there is”?

 

[jmcrae]

Yes. Then how does it follow that “the argument of “bible only evidence” is perhaps one of the biggest logical goofs there is”?

The men who wrote the Scriptures weren’t copying it from already-existing Scriptures. They were doing it by memory from the Oral Tradition. But if the Oral Tradition isn’t reliable, then how can the Scriptures be reliable?

 

[Lampo]

The men who wrote the Scriptures weren’t copying it from already-existing Scriptures. They were doing it by memory from the Oral Tradition. But if the Oral Tradition isn’t reliable, then how can the Scriptures be reliable?

Good point.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3425859]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Yes. Then how does it follow that “the argument of “bible only evidence” is perhaps one of the biggest logical goofs there is”?
jmcrae
The men who wrote the Scriptures weren’t copying it from already-existing Scriptures. They were doing it by memory from the Oral Tradition. But if the Oral Tradition isn’t reliable, then how can the Scriptures be reliable?

I don’t think memory alone was all that was going on. This culture had a high degree of literacy in which many people could write. It is not unreasonable to assume that many people who heard the words of Jesus were also writing them down. Also, the Jews had a high regard for prophets in which many people thought Jesus was and this could have also helped in that people would write down the words of a prophet so as not to forget them.
Their memories would have also been reinforced by His miracles. Luke is a good example of an investigator who at the beginning of his gospel spells out what he did when he wrote it. Luke 1:1-4. I think oral traditions coupled with people writing down the sayings of Jesus contributed to the gospels

 

[steve_b]

This doesn’t tell us what an apostle said orally that is not in Scripture.

Check again. I even underlined it

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3422723&postcount=125

just:

Keep in mind i’m referring to the Apostles of the NT.

I gave you 2 examples.

1. 
   *]Jesus recognized as authoritative oral tradition, (the chair of Moses & scribes and Pharisees who sat on the chair)) which was not written down anywhere in the OT. And Jesus said the people were to obey because they sat on Moses chair.
   *]I gave you the chair of Peter in the NT, (not written down) but clearly understood to be the authority in the Church, because the successor to Peter, the pope sits on his chair…

 

[justasking4]

steve b;3426418]
Originally Posted by justasking4

This doesn’t tell us what an apostle said orally that is not in Scripture.
Check again. I even underlined it

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=125

I must be dense. What does the “Moses seat” mentioned in the NT have to do with some kind of oral tradition of an apostle in which you have no record of outside the NT? This “Moses seat” has nothing to do with an oral tradition of apostle. For example what apostle do you know who spoke or taught (not found in the NT) said anything about the this “seat”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by just

Keep in mind i’m referring to the Apostles of the NT.
I gave you 2 examples.

1. Jesus recognized as authoritative oral tradition, (the chair of Moses & scribes and Pharisees who sat on the chair)) which was not written down anywhere in the OT. And Jesus said the people were to obey because they sat on Moses chair.

No doubt there was some kind of “chair” that is not mentioned in the OT. I know the NT Scriptures do mention at times things not found in the OT. What I’m asking you is something more specific than just a generalized statement. I want to know what apostle said anything about this seat outside the NT.

1. I gave you the chair of Peter in the NT, (not written down) but clearly understood to be the authority in the Church, because the successor to Peter, the pope sits on his chair…

Would you happen to know when this chair is first mentioned?

 

[guanophore]

This still does not mean you know what the apostles taught orally. You do not know specifically what they taught orally. No one knows.

If anyone knows where I can’t get the MP3 recordings of Paul’s daily lectures in the hall of Tyrannus I would really love to download these. Acts says he was there daily for two years, and I bet it is packed!

 

[6YRSHOME]

If anyone knows where I can’t get the MP3 recordings of Paul’s daily lectures in the hall of Tyrannus I would really love to download these. Acts says he was there daily for two years, and I bet it is packed!

 

[justasking4]

If anyone knows where I can’t get the MP3 recordings of Paul’s daily lectures in the hall of Tyrannus I would really love to download these. Acts says he was there daily for two years, and I bet it is packed!

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think there is such a thing as “the written age,” (when did it begin, if so?) and even if there is, it isn’t here yet, since more than 50% of the population of the earth is still illiterate. Most people still learn the Gospel via the Oral Tradition.

It is an invention of Fundamentalism, designed to invalidate the Sacred Tradition. The “Church Age” had to be divided up into parts, to prove that Catholics got it wrong. I did not know about it either, until I started dialoguing with Fundamentalists on this Board. It is not in the Bible, either.

What i’m referring to is the teachings of the apostles which for a time was oral but is no longer. It is their writings that is the authority for the church and not their oral teachings.

You are “speculating” to use your favorite term, that the Sacred Teaching of the Apostles no longer exists. I think Protestants must do this, in order to justify disobedience to the Scriptures which command that they must be followed.

When did their oral teachings lose authority? I am not aware of the Church’s declaration that the oral teachings no longer have authority - where are you getting that from?

Why were their oral teachings authoritative at one time, but not any more?

Although ja4 appears to believe that God is able to “once save always save” a person, and that God can use infallible men to produce and inspired-inerrant Bible, he is not able to believe that God can watch over His word to perform it from one generation to the next. He never did answer my question about how the Word of God was preserved from the time of Adam and Eve until Moses, or even from the time of Abraham to Moses!

 

[Milliardo]

Here is a reference in Acts 20:7 where the day of worship for Christians is mentioned:
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.
The reference to the first day of the week is Sunday and the breaking of bread is reference to worship.

I already referenced that (if you have bothered to read my posts a few pages back); it’s not a command at all to worship on Sunday; remember that at the time this was written, Christians still observed the Saturday Sabbath with the Jews and worshiped with them in the synagogue and Temple. Nice try, but doesn’t work.

Here is a historical reference to when Christmas was celebrated:
“for the first 300 years of Christianity, it wasn’t so. When was Christmas first celebrated? In an old list of Roman bishops, compiled in A. D. 354 these words appear for A.D. 336: “25 Dec.: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae.” December 25th, Christ born in Bethlehem, Judea. This day, December 25, 336, is the first recorded celebration of Christmas.
For the first three hundred years of the church’s existence, birthdays were not given much emphasis–not even the birth of Christ. The day on which a saint died was considered more significant than his or her birth, as it ushered him or her into the kingdom of heaven. Christ’s baptism received more attention than his birthday in the January 6th feast of Epiphany.” Christianity Today International

Actually, as early as 200 A.D. Christ’s birth was already observed, though the date would vary considerably until it was fixed to December 25. Regardless of the date, it’s clear that Jesus’ birth was already celebrated quite early on, refuting the claim that it was not observed for the first 300 years of Christianity.

Not so. All you have shown is that there were various things done in the past but no direct reference to an apostle instituting something outside the NT.

See Acts 20:7

Again, no go for Acts 20:7; its institution would come at a later date, not yet much at the time Acts was written. Though commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection was done on Sundays, it would be awhile before this would become a formal part of Christianity. Ditto for other celebrations like Easter. We can also reference the Liturgy of St. James, used in Jerusalem and from which the liturgy of the Orthodox Church would be derived from (the same more or less could be said of the Catholic Mass being derived from St. James’ liturgy, but that would be topic for another discussion).

---

If a person truly wants to live, he can make any place he wants a heaven.–Yui Ikari, Neon Genesis Evangelion

You like my sig?

 

[Protestant101]

The men who wrote the Scriptures weren’t copying it from already-existing Scriptures. They were doing it by memory from the Oral Tradition. But if the Oral Tradition isn’t reliable, then how can the Scriptures be reliable?

Actually, this is quite false; obviously something that Catholic apologetics teaches people to say, of course. Therefore, it is a falsehood to believe that “the men who wrote the scriptures… were doing it by oral tradition…”

The so called oral tradition that catholics tout, actually ended during the time of the apostles; like many OT methods, it was no longer needed. Plus, we are told clearly that the Apostles wrote BOTH what they saw and what they heard. In other words, they weren’t just writing words spoken to them; they would often see things in vision, and so, collectively, they wrote what they both saw and heard, direct from God, not “oral tradition.”

Act 4:20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

Protestants around the globe do just what the apostles were told to do; they are witnesses of what the apostles both saw and heard; and which they allow to become a part of their walk with Christ. Christians today do not need to depend upon dubious “oral tradition” dogmas, rather, they witness for what they personally have “seen and heard, and handled,” of the written word of life that the apostles all held up prominently before the world:

Act 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

**

So called oral Tradition is always too debateable to be dependable. It is from men. Not God.

"…I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write," (Rev.14:13). The priority for Christians today must be the written word. This is where jesus always placed His major emphasis:

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written

, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

It is also worth noting how Jesus, in this scripture carried over the Tradition of the written word from Old Testament times:

Jos 8:31

As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.
Psa 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book **it is written of me, **
Dan 9:13 As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.

Protestants accept the fact asserted by Daniel that we need the “it is written” priority to “understand [God’s] truth.”

**

 

[guanophore]

We don’t know what the apostles taught since its not written down. In other words the only thing we know the apostles taught is found in the NT.

You have explained that, when you use the word “we” you are speaking of “true” Christians (Bible only). So, when you make statements like this, it is an offhand way of saying that persons belonging to Apostolic faiths are not real Christians, because we have kept the Sacred Traditions as they were handed down by the Apostles.

Do you imagine that, by repeating the same lie over and over, you can make converts here? Do you realize that people have been mounting lies like this for 2000 years against the Church that Jesus founded?

You don’t. It has to do with history.

Do you not see any double standard, when the Church bases Doctrine on Sacred History, and you reject it, but you base doctrine on human history, and insist that it is more true than what was received from the Apostles?

How are you going to prove some claimed “oral teaching” of the apostles that is 2000 years old was spoken by such and such apostle?

It is not a matter of “proof”, ja4. It is a matter of the obedience of faith. We accept what was passed down to us by the Apostles because that is what we are commanded to do. This question is like asking an unbelieving Jew today; “How are you going to prove that Jesus is the Son of God”. A person is only convinced of the “proofs’ who approaches in faith. Jesus begged the Jews to accept the 'proof” of his signs, even if they did not take His word for it, but they could not, because they had not faith.

I’m sure you are aware how quickly oral communications degrade. Playing the telephone game makes this quite clear. To think that some oral communication of the apostles that was not written down could have survived for very long is not sustainable.

You deny the Power of God, ja4, and it is sad that your faith is so weak. You compare the infallible Word of God to a game played between children. You do not believe that God can watch over His word to perform it, or that His word will accomplish the purpose for which He sent it forth. It is inconceivable to me that you could accept the Bible, and reject the Sacred Tradition that produced it. I wonder how you thing God preserved HIs Word from the time of Adam and Eve until the time of MOses?

Maybe i’m wrong.

It is my fervent prayer that your tiny notion of who God is, and what He can do will grow.

What oral teaching are can you produce that you know with certainity was spoken by an apostle? Who claims this was spoken by an apostle in the 2nd century for example?

We have done this in other threads, and it is all through the Early Church Fathers. I accept that you are not able to receive it.

i agree that the apostles taught orally. However the only things we have from them is their writings. It does you or anyone else to claim some kind of oral traditions outside the written Scriptures does not help since we don’t know exactly what that was.

The only ones who no longer know the content are those that separated themselves from the Church to which it was given.

How about just 2-3 examples of what the apostles taught orally that is not in the NT?

If they are found there why doesn’t someone just a couple of examples of these oral sayings of the apostles that are not in the Scriptures and show us?

We have given you dozens of examples, ja4. you reject them all!
Usually by saying “that is not in the NT”!

I agree that the Scriptures say this but what i'm asking is: what exactly are these sayings not recorded in the NT?

It is a ridiculous question. All of the NT came from the Sacred Oral Traditions. Why would they not overlap?

How do you know exactly what they were?

Because we were given specifics about what the Holy Writings meant, from the sources the wrote them.

Claiming that they can be found in some library is amazing claim in and of itself. I would have thought that if this was the case the church would have produced them by them since there are many who would like to know what else Jesus said that is not recorded in the Scriptures.

The Church receives the Teachings from Jesus, through the Apostles. The Church has produced many things in addition to the canon. You reject them all.

 

[guanophore]

i think we can assume they did teach orally and may have written also. However just because its probable that they did does not mean we know what it was since we have no documentation of what exactly it was.

You have limited your reception of the Apostolic Traditions to those that are written. You have demonstrated that you have not the trust in God almighty to preserve His own Word within the Church. You speak as one who has been severely abused by persons in a position of authority over you, and have no trust in authority as a result.

This is true. John writes in 20:30-31 says –
30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Even though Jesus performed other signs in their presence what John wrote is enough to believe and make salvation possible for us.

I am confident that salvation is possible for you, ja4.

Do you have some support for this from church documents?

Indeed! We have the New Testament, produced by the infallible Teachings of the Holy Apostles and Prophets (the foundation of the Church). We know that the NT is inspired-inerrant because it came from this source.

Paul certainly used lists at times to make his points.

Yes, but I am not trying to “illustrate a point”. I am trying to convey that the Teaching of Jesus is much larger than what appears in the Sacred Writings, and that those who have separated themselves from the Church to which the Holy Sacred Writings were produced have lost parts of the meaning.

My request for some kind of list goes to the heart of this issue. Sacred Traditions are claimed by you and others and i’m not sure exactly what all these are.

You cannot aspire to such knowledge, ja4. I am sorry.

Secondly, knowing the origins of these Sacred Traditions is also an important issue so we can see from where they come from and why. Without this kind of info it makes your claim to Sacred Traditions quite weak since it seems you don't know specifically what they are.

Those who have kept the Apostolic commandment to preserve the Traditions know without a doubt that the source of them are Jesus Christ HImself. I have no “claim” at all. I am only sharing the Teachings as I have received them. Those who have recieved them know what they are, because we practice them daily.

How is that determined if they are from God or man?

The Sacred Traditions are from God. The others are customs of men.

You don’t know either what these “many things that Jesus said and did that are not written in them” are? You and others who claim this have yet to show what Jesus said outside of the NT.

It is wrong for you to think that the Oral Word and the Written word are separated. They are not. The Traditions show us how to understand the written word in the way it was written by the Apostles.

Can you give me some examples here of Paul’s traditions?

Yes, and we find several of them in the NT, including the Mass.

You still have problems with false teachers coming into the church though.

No need to blow your horn, ja4, we know that you are here. Yes, we have many problems caused by persons such as yourself.

 We know also that all the written Scriptures speak the truth. Beyond them we don't have such confidence especially when we compare later teachings with the Scriptures that are not supported by the Scriptures.

This is a Fundamentalist innovation that has emered in America within the last 150 years.

 

[guanophore]

If what you say is true then what am to make of James 4:5 which says—Or do you think that **the Scripture speaks **to no purpose: “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us”?

Even wisdom speaks to us. Proverbs 8:1-8:

Does not wisdom call,And understanding lift up her voice?
2 On top of the heights beside the way,Where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
3 Beside the gates, at the opening to the city,At the entrance of the doors, she cries out:
4 “To you, O men, I call,And my voice is to the sons of men.
5 “O naive ones, understand prudence;And, O fools, understand wisdom.
6 “Listen, for I will speak noble things;And the opening of my lips will reveal right things.
7 “For my mouth will utter truth;And wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
8 “All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness;There is nothing crooked or perverted in them.

ja4, the Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the Holy People to whom they were given.They “speak” most fully every day at the Mass, and when they are in the mouths of those who are joined to their Source.

You will never convince me otherwise, since I took a class in college called “Bible as Literature”. It was only then that I realized that the Holy Scriptures, when read by persons with no faith, are no more than literature.

No doubt Christ gave teachers to His church that they might teach the truth of the Scriptures. What you fail to understand is that there are also false teachers in own church who have led many catholics astray.

It is ok, ja4, there is no need ot annoiunce yourself with flagrant arrival. We all know you are here, and what your purpose is to us.

Your not entirely correct. Since we don’t know specifically what else Jesus or His apostles taught or did outside the NT (there is no evidence for what this was) then we can’t say what it was. If you think you know what it was then you are going to have to show it your documentation. That has never been done.

Oh, dear, ja4. I just read a post of yours that was responding to another member who noted that there are millions of books in libraries around the world. You discounted this, saying something to the effect that things should be reduced to a "list’. Now our are having the audacity to say that “documentation has never been done”. This is very saddening. Persons who have been obedient to the Apostolic commandment to remember the Traditions as they were delivered have done so. We know what they are.

All that we know what Jesus and His apostles taught can only be found in the NT writings.

If you wish to limit your understanding to the written Word, that is your perogative, but it is wrong for you to try to pressure others to give up the rest of the Divine Revelation to affirm your misbeliefs.

Not so. Your church could easily make a list of what all the “Sacred Traditions” are.

When you say things like “your” church, it indicates that you have no understanding that Jesus only started One Church, and that there is only One Body,a nd that all who are in Christ are members of it.

No, ja4, the Teachings of our Lord would not be honored if they were reduced to a “list”. I am sure, however, since you are led by the HS., if you need these, you can get them directly from God, just as the Apostle Paul did, can you not? When you get them, post them here for our enrichment.

Nonsense. What you are promoting is some kind of gnosticism. I suspect you really don’t know yourself what all these Sacred Traditions are. If you did you would have produced them by now.

It is not gnosticism, ja4. It is about approaching the Divine Revelation with an attitude of faith. They are not "secret"knowlege, as was the gnostic teaching. But they cannot be apprehended without faith. If you do not believe they exist, then they will never exist FOR YOU. “Be it done to you according to your faith”. Do you know how many time Jesus said this?

What i’m referring to is that we have no record of their oral teachings.

You are finally getting it, ja4. This is what we have been telling you for a year and a half. Fundamentalists are separated from the Apostolic Traditions because they are separated from the Church that Jesus founded. As a result, they are left with only the written scriptures, and have no record of the Sacred Oral Traditions.

These practices you refer to can be found in the written Scriptures.

some can, but not all. For example, many are found in the Didache that are not in the NT.

What were these “other signs” He performed if they are not written down?

Those that transmitted to the Apostles “all” that they needed to know. This is not found in Scripture.

e bishop ever be wrong?

These practices you refer to can be found in the written Scriptures.

I agree in part. However, what do we make of this statement in John 20:30 which says–Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

What were these “other signs” He performed if they are not written down?

Can the bishop ever be wrong?

 

[guanophore]

If you are referring to John 20:30 then your church does not know what they were either.

Secondly, if your church has the responsiblity to interpret the Scriptures why has it only infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses?

Because those were the ones being perverted the most by the Fundamentalists. The Church has the duty to Teach the Truth, and to make clear the difference between Truth and Error. Once the Holy 'Writings have been perverted, it is necessary to clarify them.

if you are looking for the a church that interprets the Bible verse by verse, it is not the catholic church for she does not read the Bible the way protestants do. get this through your head.

This is true. But ja4 is not “looking for a Church”. His purpose here is to demonstrate that the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by false teachers, has fallen into error, and cannot be trusted because the teachings are not biblical.

 

[Protestant101]

It is a ridiculous question. All of the NT came from the Sacred Oral Traditions. Why would they not overlap?

You certainly are being evasive in your posts to the question at hand. LLOL, One would think you were being tailed by the Mafia or something. But it actually is not a ridiculous question, and there are many sincere seekers of truth who would like specifics instead of generalizations. Catholics have never been able to actually give us even a partial list of "truths’ not in the NT, but, supposedly, in what they have coined as “Tradition.” Why can’t you tell us what these things are, and where we can find them to read for ourselves?

The Church receives the Teachings from Jesus, through the Apostles. The Church has produced many things in addition to the canon. You reject them all.

By using such descriptors as “ridiculous” and “you reject them all;” you only show us all one thing, and it is NOT in the New Testament.

 

[Protestant101]

This is true. But ja4 is not “looking for a Church”. His purpose here is to demonstrate that the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by false teachers, has fallen into error, and cannot be trusted because the teachings are not biblical.

This is not wrong of ja4, for if you read the forum description here; it is specifically for the purpose of comparing and contrasting our respective faiths.

I personally, would commend Catholic Answers for being so bold!!