Protestant saying hello

[jmcrae]

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.

Jesus Christ ended the Old Testament age with His crucifixion and resurrection, in 33 AD. By what sign did the age of Christian Oral Tradition end (which began when Christ began to teach), and in what year?

Plus, we are told clearly that the Apostles wrote BOTH what they saw and what they heard.

They wrote, 12-52 years after the fact, about what they saw and heard between the years of 30 AD and 33 AD, when they were walking with Jesus. They weren’t seeing or hearing anything at the time that they were writing; they were just remembering about Jesus, and writing down their memories. (This is why St. Justin refers to the New Testament as the “memoirs of the Apostles.”)

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.”

Where do you get this idea from? It seems as though you are under the impression that the Apostles were doing some kind of “automatic writing” or something. (This is forbidden - it is considered demonic.)

 

[Protestant101]

Jesus Christ ended the Old Testament age with His crucifixion and resurrection, in 33 AD. By what sign did the age of Christian Oral Tradition end (which began when Christ began to teach), and in what year?

They wrote, 12-52 years after the fact, about what they saw and heard between the years of 30 AD and 33 AD, when they were walking with Jesus. They weren’t seeing or hearing anything at the time that they were writing; they were just remembering about Jesus, and writing down their memories. (This is why St. Justin refers to the New Testament as the “memoirs of the Apostles.”)

Where do you get this idea from? It seems as though you are under the impression that the Apostles were doing some kind of “automatic writing” or something. (This is forbidden - it is considered demonic.)

Are you going to deny the scriptures I quoted above? it is still called “God’s Word,” no matter when you want to say they wrote it down. The written word is what Jesus Himself emphasized as I did show from scripture - but then, to you, it is just “memoirs.”

 

[jmcrae]

Are you going to deny the scriptures I quoted above? it is still called “God’s Word,” no matter when you want to say they wrote it down. The written word is what Jesus Himself emphasized as I did show from scripture - but then, to you, it is just “memoirs.”

It can still be God’s word, even if it was “just memoirs.” After all, they are memoirs about God coming down to earth and being a human being, and dying for our sins and all that. That’s the part that’s God’s word; not the ink on the page. God’s word comes to us not only in the Bible, but by Oral Tradition, and the point I am trying to make is that it is God’s word in Oral Tradition that gave us the Bible, in the first place.

I will grant you that St. John was having visions for most of the Book of Revelation, but that is only one of the 27 books of the New Testament. The rest of them (including John’s other four books) were written in the ordinary way that one writes.

 

[jmcrae]

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?

Everything necessary is in the Catechism.

 

[Protestant101]

It can still be God’s word, even if it was “just memoirs.” After all, they are memoirs about God coming down to earth and being a human being, and dying for our sins and all that. That’s the part that’s God’s word; not the ink on the page. God’s word comes to us not only in the Bible, but by Oral Tradition, and the point I am trying to make is that it is God’s word in Oral Tradition that gave us the Bible, in the first place.

I will grant you that St. John was having visions for most of the Book of Revelation, but that is only one of the 27 books of the New Testament. The rest of them (including John’s other four books) were written in the ordinary way that one writes.

Instead of opening the soul to receive rays of light from heaven, some have been working in an opposite direction. Both through the press and from the pulpit have been presented views in regard to the inspiration of the Bible which have not the sanction of the Spirit or the word of God.
Certain it is that no man or set of men should undertake to advance theories upon a subject of so great importance, without a plain “Thus saith the Lord” to sustain them.

And when men, compassed with human infirmities, affected in a greater or less degree by surrounding influences, and having hereditary and cultivated tendencies which are far from making them wise or heavenly-minded, undertake to arraign the word of God, and to pass judgment upon what is divine and what is human, they are working without the counsel of God. The Lord will not prosper such a work. The effect will be disastrous, both upon the one engaged in it and upon those who accept it as a work from God.

Skepticism has been aroused in many minds by the theories presented as to the nature of inspiration. Finite beings, with their narrow, short-sighted views, feel themselves competent to criticize the Scriptures, saying: “This passage is needful, and that passage is not needful, and is not inspired.”

Christ gave no such instruction in regard to the Old Testament Scriptures, the only part of the Bible which the people of His time possessed. (and that was not written by the Catholics). His teachings were designed to direct their minds to the Old Testament and to bring into clearer light the great themes there presented. For ages the people of Israel had been separating themselves from God, and they had lost sight of precious truths which He had committed to them.

These truths were covered up with superstitious forms and ceremonies that concealed their true significance. Christ came to remove the rubbish which had obscured their luster. He placed them, as precious gems, in a new setting. He showed that so far from disdaining the repetition of old, familiar truths, He came to make them appear in their true force and beauty, the glory of which had never been discerned by the men of His time.

Himself the Author of these revealed truths, He could open to the people their true meaning, freeing them from the misinterpretations and false theories adopted by the leaders to suit their own unconsecrated condition, their destitution of spirituality and the love of God.

He cast aside that which had robbed these truths of life and vital power, and gave them back to the world in all their original freshness and force.

 

[jmcrae]

Instead of opening the soul to receive rays of light from heaven, some have been working in an opposite direction. Both through the press and from the pulpit have been presented views in regard to the inspiration of the Bible which have not the sanction of the Spirit or the word of God.
Certain it is that no man or set of men should undertake to advance theories upon a subject of so great importance, without a plain “Thus saith the Lord” to sustain them.

And when men, compassed with human infirmities, affected in a greater or less degree by surrounding influences, and having hereditary and cultivated tendencies which are far from making them wise or heavenly-minded, undertake to arraign the word of God, and to pass judgment upon what is divine and what is human, they are working without the counsel of God. The Lord will not prosper such a work. The effect will be disastrous, both upon the one engaged in it and upon those who accept it as a work from God.

Skepticism has been aroused in many minds by the theories presented as to the nature of inspiration. Finite beings, with their narrow, short-sighted views, feel themselves competent to criticize the Scriptures, saying: “This passage is needful, and that passage is not needful, and is not inspired.”

Christ gave no such instruction in regard to the Old Testament Scriptures, the only part of the Bible which the people of His time possessed. (and that was not written by the Catholics). His teachings were designed to direct their minds to the Old Testament and to bring into clearer light the great themes there presented. For ages the people of Israel had been separating themselves from God, and they had lost sight of precious truths which He had committed to them.

These truths were covered up with superstitious forms and ceremonies that concealed their true significance. Christ came to remove the rubbish which had obscured their luster. He placed them, as precious gems, in a new setting. He showed that so far from disdaining the repetition of old, familiar truths, He came to make them appear in their true force and beauty, the glory of which had never been discerned by the men of His time.

Himself the Author of these revealed truths, He could open to the people their true meaning, freeing them from the misinterpretations and false theories adopted by the leaders to suit their own unconsecrated condition, their destitution of spirituality and the love of God.

He cast aside that which had robbed these truths of life and vital power, and gave them back to the world in all their original freshness and force.

I know I’ve read that before; what’s it from?

 

[steve_b]

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?

• “Moses seat” was oral tradition.
• The scribes and pharisees sitting on Moses seat is oral tradition.
• The fact that people must do what they say because they sit on Moses seat is oral tradition.
• You won’t find any of this written in the OT.
  Jesus validates this oral tradition as completely authoritative even though there is no written record of it in the OT…

That’s because scriptura was never sola.

asking:

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”?

NO ONE except Jesus spoke of Moses seat. Was Jesus telling the people something they didn’t already know? Yet it wasn’t written down anywhere in the OT records.

Compare that oral tradition with Peter’s chair. And the one who succeeds Peter, like those who succeeded to Moses chair.

asking:

No doubt there was some kind of “chair” that is not mentioned in the OT.

Don’t you think that’s a rather important item not to mention? Yet there is no disagreement from the people who are listening to Jesus. This is clearly oral tradition passed on. You need to realize, Moses hasn’t been seen at this point for 2000 years. Yet this succession existed, and has been going on since the death of Moses. And the first time we hear anything about it is from Jesus, 2000 years after Moses died. And what’s important to notice, it’s not new news to Jesus listeners, even though it wasn’t part of the written record

asking:

I know the NT Scriptures do mention at times things not found in the OT.

And do you believe it?

asking:

What I’m asking you is something more specific than just a generalized statement.

What I gave you IS specific.

1. • Moses chair,
   • scibes and pharisees sitting on Moses chair
   • All must obey them because they sit on Moses chair
     NO WAY is this not specific. No way are these just generalized statements. This is a big deal, and no where do we see any of this written in the OT record. It’s been kept alive by oral tradition, which is as authoritative as written tradition. Jesus said so.
   
   asking:
   

   I want to know what apostle said anything about this seat outside the NT.

   Why? Jesus was the one to validate the oral tradition of Moses seat.
   
   
   asking:
   

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

   ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETCHAIR.htm

 

[guanophore]

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…”

I am curious to know how you think the stories got from Adam and Eve to Moses, or even from Abraham to Moses, since there were many milliennia that passed prior to them ever being written.

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.

Please show your evidence for this assertion,and show where in the NT the commandments to hold fast to the Traditions were discontinued.

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.”

There was 20-50 years from the time the events occurred, and they were written in the NT. Most of the NT books were not even written by eyewitnesses. So, how do you think this information “got around”?

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:

The two are not mutually exclusive. It is quite appropriate for one who has received the Sacred Traditions from the Apostles to also bear witness to what the HS has done in their own life.

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

I am sorry to hear you have been misinformed about this. To me, it seems quite clear that the Sacred Oral Tradition is considered The Word of God in the NT. I cannot fathom why one would spurn the Word of God, whatever form it came.

"...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:[/qutoe]

Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ, but you are wrong about the emphasis. Jesus put the emphasis upon Himself. He chastized the Pharisees because they searched the scriptures, but would not come to Him, that they might receive life.
Protestant101;3427205:

It is also worth noting how Jesus, in this scripture carried over the Tradition of the written word

from Old Testament times:

And He never discontinued the keeping of Sacred Oral Tradition, either! In fact, He commanded that the Apostles “teach all that I have commanded”. Not “teach all that was written”.

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

The Written Word is indeed essential. However, God revealed Himself to Daniel quite apart from the Sacred Scripture in many ways.

I suppose Protestants need to cook up some “reason” for rejecting the commandment of scripture to “hold fast to the traditions just as I have delivered them to you”. One of those Traditions is the Apostolic Authority, and there has to be some way to reject that, or one could not be rightly Protestant!

 

[guanophore]

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.

There may be, but I know for certain that ja4 is not one. He has already said that he believes the Sacred Traditions are only the “speculations of men”, and that nothing from the Teaching of the Apostles exists outside the NT. He cannot possibly learn about these Sacred Traditions, because he has already made up his mind that they don’t exist. Does that make sense?

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?

On the contrary, ja4 has been given DOZENS of references over many months, over many threads. We have directed him with books, links, and all manner of places to find the Teachings. He creates conditions under which, no matter what is produced, it is inadmissable. That is why I say “ridiculuous”. jmcrae recently put it very well. He asks for something not in scripture, it is provided to him, then he says it cannot be believed because it is not in scripture. Go figure?

The Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Traditions which produced them. Therefore, demanding that authenticity is confirmed when something is found in one that is not in the other is silly.

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.

The Apostles Creed comprises Apostolic Teaching. However, there are some things found in it that are not specifically reference in the NT. The table of contents for the Bible is not in the Bible. We got the contents through Sacred Tradition. The word Trinity is not in the Bible, but we seen the elements of the doctrine in the NT. These concepts have been in the “lists” that were provided to ja4 that he rejects. He accepts the doctrines as true, but invalidates the Source from which they came. The Sacred Tradition we have through the Aposltes teaching did not “expire” and the concept of the 'written age" is an evangelical invention.

 

[guanophore]

I must be dense.

That’s ok, ja4. God loves all those He has created and those here at CAF who have made the commitment pray daily that the light of Christ will dawn in you heart an “that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner man, 17 and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.” Eph 3:16-19

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?

The “seat of Moses” is the Authority that is given to Teach and th Judge according to God’s commandment. Jesus took this Authority from the Pharisees an Sadducees, and gave it to the Apostles. He trained them to understand “everything”, then commanded them to Teach. He empowered them with His authority.

It is an error to say that no records of this exist outside of the NT. You have been given dozens of examples, all of which you reject. You have been given free will by God, and you are free to reject the Revelation of God of Himself to you. Therefore, these records may not exist FOR YOU. However, your do not have any power over anyone else, as you seem to think to make them “disappear”.

"To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. Luke 8:10

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”?

It has EVERY thing to do with it,ja4. Jesus empowered the Apostles to Teach all that He had commanded. This is the full content of the Sacred Oral Tradition. The rule you have created that Jesus’ Teaching should somehow be excluded from the NT makes no sense to me. I have given you, as have other members, many examples of the Sacred Oral Tradition. For some reason, you accept many of these doctrines, yet you reject others that come from the same Source. You accept the Sacred Tradition of observing the Sabbath on Sunday, though this is not found in the NT. You accept the Trinity,but reject the communion of saints.

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.

There is much Apostolic teaching found outside the NT. The Authority of the Chair of St. Peter is one of those. That authority comes from Christ, and is symbolized in the Keys that were given to Peter. Today, when infallible pronouncements are made like the ones that Peter made, they are made “ex cathedra”, or from the chair (seat). That means they carry Apostolic Authority.

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

As far as I know, Jesus’ reference to it is the first. Probably if I were more scholarly in Hebrew Talmud I could do better. The authority did not come to those occupying the “seat” willy nilly, I am sure.

 

[guanophore]

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!!

ja4 is not here to compare and contrast, but to make converts. there is a fundamental difference. He takes every opporuntity to slander the Catholic faith. He has also stated that he is not here to learn, but to teach us what we obviously lost at some point in history.

He does not want any Catholic answers. On the contrary, he wants to give Catholics his answers. He has consistently advised Catholics to abandon their beliefs, and embrace his. This attitude and practice runs counter to the purpose of the forum.

 

[Lampo]

This attitude and practice runs counter to the purpose of the forum.

Isn’t this a violation of forum rules and shouldn’t he be banned?

 

[guanophore]

And when men, compassed with human infirmities, affected in a greater or less degree by surrounding influences, and having hereditary and cultivated tendencies which are far from making them wise or heavenly-minded, undertake to arraign the word of God, and to pass judgment upon what is divine and what is human, they are working without the counsel of God. The Lord will not prosper such a work. The effect will be disastrous, both upon the one engaged in it and upon those who accept it as a work from God.

From this passage, it appears that you think that men are the source of Sacred Tradition instead of God. If it were men, though, I agree with all this.

His teachings were designed to direct their minds to the Old Testament and to bring into clearer light the great themes there presented. For ages the people of Israel had been separating themselves from God, and they had lost sight of precious truths which He had committed to them.

I agree with you, and this is what He trained the Apostles to do also. This is why we say that the scriptures must be interpreted within the light of Apostolic Teaching. They are the ones to whom he gave the insight and authority to do it properly.

These truths were covered up with superstitious forms and ceremonies that concealed their true significance. Christ came to remove the rubbish which had obscured their luster. He placed them, as precious gems, in a new setting. He showed that so far from disdaining the repetition of old, familiar truths, He came to make them appear in their true force and beauty, the glory of which had never been discerned by the men of His time.

This is too sweeping. Not all the truths were “lost” or covered up. There were some that “got” them.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3426960]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.

You are “speculating” to use your favorite term, that the Sacred Teaching of the Apostles no longer exists.

The only Teaching of the Apostles that exists are the written Scriptures. You can claim Sacred Tradition but when we look at examples of it and see if it really is from the apostles we find either a reference to it in the scriptures or some kind of claim that it is a apostolic tradition which cannot be grounded.

I think Protestants must do this, in order to justify disobedience to the Scriptures which command that they must be followed.

I’m sure there are some protestants that are disobedinet to the Scriptures. That i agree. However, your church is especially guilty of abusing the scriptures to teach things that they never do.

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,

Do you deny these things?

he is not able to believe that God can watch over His word to perform it from one generation to the next.

What do you mean when you write—“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!

I must have missed it in my refuting of so many of your false ideas. The only Word of God that I’m aware of are the written Scriptures. If there was some kind of “Word of God” between Adam and Moses I don’t know what it was. Do you know?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

justasking4 waiting for a response to my post to you showing examples of Apostle teaching from th 1 and early 2nd century that are not included in scripture.

 

[justasking4]

justasking4 waiting for a response to my post to you showing examples of Apostle teaching from th 1 and early 2nd century that are not included in scripture.

I got this from one of your posts:
1.The apostles further appointed: Forty days before the day of the passion of our Saviour fast ye, and then celebrate the day of the passion, and the day of the resurrection: because our Lord Himself also, the Lord of the festival, fasted forty days; and Moses and Elijah, who were endued with this mystery, likewise each fasted forty days, and then were glorified.( Lent)

2 . The apostles further appointed: At the conclusion of all the Scriptures other let the Gospel be read, as being the seal of all the Scriptures; and let the people listen to it standing upon their feet: because it is the Gospel of the redemption of all men

There are 2 tradition of the Church that come from the Apostles.

How do you know these are from the apostles? What specific apostle taught these things?

 

[Protestant101]

There may be, but I know for certain that ja4 is not one. He has already said that he believes the Sacred Traditions are only the “speculations of men”, and that nothing from the Teaching of the Apostles exists outside the NT. He cannot possibly learn about these Sacred Traditions, because he has already made up his mind that they don’t exist. Does that make sense?

On the contrary, ja4 has been given DOZENS of references over many months, over many threads. We have directed him with books, links, and all manner of places to find the Teachings. He creates conditions under which, no matter what is produced, it is inadmissable. That is why I say “ridiculuous”. jmcrae recently put it very well. He asks for something not in scripture, it is provided to him, then he says it cannot be believed because it is not in scripture. Go figure?

The Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Traditions which produced them. Therefore, demanding that authenticity is confirmed when something is found in one that is not in the other is silly.

The Apostles Creed comprises Apostolic Teaching. However, there are some things found in it that are not specifically reference in the NT. The table of contents for the Bible is not in the Bible. We got the contents through Sacred Tradition. The word Trinity is not in the Bible, but we seen the elements of the doctrine in the NT. These concepts have been in the “lists” that were provided to ja4 that he rejects. He accepts the doctrines as true, but invalidates the Source from which they came. The Sacred Tradition we have through the Aposltes teaching did not “expire” and the concept of the 'written age" is an evangelical invention.

Well; you keep bragging about all the “references” you supply us poor, know-nothing Protestants with; but not a one of them prove what you say. You just say they do. The table of contents for the Bible is NOT “sacred” whether you want to call it “God’s Word” or “Tradition.”

Anything you want to call “Tradition” must be able to meet the scrutiny of the Bible; yet, Catholics keep saying on this forum how that there are things in “Tradition” not included in the NT Bible. You can’t/won’t supply us with a list of what those would be, so now we are reduced to philisophical meanderings into your personal, uninspired opinions.

 

[Lampo]

Anything you want to call “Tradition” must be able to meet the scrutiny of the Bible;

The first book of the NT was written for at least 10 years after the death of Christ, right? You have to admit at least the first ten years of the Church used Tradition since there was no Bible. How could the Tradition at that time “meet the scrutiny of the Bible” if there was no Bible? Do you understand that the Bible doesn’t say which books are supposed to be in there? It was the Tradition of the Catholic Church that decided this.

 

[guanophore]

The only Teaching of the Apostles that exists are the written Scriptures. You can claim Sacred Tradition but when we look at examples of it and see if it really is from the apostles we find either a reference to it in the scriptures or some kind of claim that it is a apostolic tradition which cannot be grounded.

That is your perception, ja4, and you are welcome to it. Please do not expect that those of us who have received the Sacred Traditions and follow the commandment to “hold fast” to them are likely to abandon them. Of course there are references in the NT to the Sacred Tradition! That was the Source of the entire content of the NT! That is why I say that your criteria that they not be related is ridiculous. The Church would not have had to develop the doctrine of the Trinity if the Scriptures were sufficient in themselves to do so. They are not written for the purpose of teaching the doctrines. Jesus appointed the Church to do that.

I’m sure there are some protestants that are disobedinet to the Scriptures. That i agree. However, your church is especially guilty of abusing the scriptures to teach things that they never do.

Fortunately, the Church received her teachings from Jesus directly, and since the NT reflects all of Catholic belief, there are no contradictions in what is found in the Bible, and what is found in the Church teachings. A person who seems to think there are contradictions either does not understand one or the other.

What do you mean when you write—“God can watch over His word to perform it from one generation to the next”?

That God is not playing the child’s game of “telephone” as you suggest. He has created a way to preserve His Holy Word from one generation to the next. He has been doing this from the time of Adam and Eve. How do you think that Moses came to write the story? He wasn’t there. How did He find out? How did He know about Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? None of Jewish history was written. It was all preserved in Sacred Oral Tradition.

If there was some kind of “Word of God” between Adam and Moses I don’t know what it was. Do you know?

Yes. And it did not come to Moses by the “telephone” game, I assure you.

Well; you keep bragging about all the “references” you supply us poor, know-nothing Protestants with; but not a one of them prove what you say. You just say they do. The table of contents for the Bible is NOT “sacred” whether you want to call it “God’s Word” or “Tradition.”

I wasn’t bragging. I was once a poor know nothing Protestant too, so I know how it can be. Yes, the revelation of God about which books belong in the Bible is most Sacred to Christians. The Church had to discern between some 400 texts of the time, all claiming to be authentic.

Anything you want to call “Tradition” must be able to meet the scrutiny of the Bible; yet, Catholics keep saying on this forum how that there are things in “Tradition” not included in the NT Bible. You can’t/won’t supply us with a list of what those would be,

What does that mean “meet the scrutiny of the Bible”? Of course there are Traditions not included in the Bible. The Catholics that composed the NT had no intention of making it a complete work in the doctrine of the faith. You don’t even accept that the contents of the Bible you are attempting to use as a standard comes from Sacred Tradition! What good are more lists?

so now we are reduced to philisophical meanderings into your personal, uninspired opinions.

Actually, I have not given any of my opinions yet, except on the behavior of ja4. The rest of my posts are an attempt to represent the position of Catholicism.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I got this from one of your posts:
1.The apostles further appointed: Forty days before the day of the passion of our Saviour fast ye, and then celebrate the day of the passion, and the day of the resurrection: because our Lord Himself also, the Lord of the festival, fasted forty days; and Moses and Elijah, who were endued with this mystery, likewise each fasted forty days, and then were glorified.( Lent)

2 . The apostles further appointed: At the conclusion of all the Scriptures other let the Gospel be read, as being the seal of all the Scriptures; and let the people listen to it standing upon their feet: because it is the Gospel of the redemption of all men

There are 2 tradition of the Church that come from the Apostles.

How do you know these are from the apostles? What specific apostle taught these things?

we know they came from the Apostles as they were in practice from the earlies church writings and all the Apostles taught them.

There are many witting from the early church fathers and Apostles
on the how to that that are not included in Scripture.

I find it interesting if we look at it after 300 some years the Church gathered together all the different writings to compile the Bible they at that time never said this is the compilation of all church teaching. Then some 1200 years a few people said that Scripture is all we need and started discarding (Traditional ) things that were also held and taught a pick and choose sort of thing. If you look at things such a petitions to the saints you may not find them in the Bible, But you can find support for them. As we know from the transfiguration of Jesus He spoke to Moses and Elijah that the Saints are able to speak to God. As we all except that others living can pray to God on our Behalf and from the for mentioned we know that the Saints( those that have died and gone on to heaven) can speak to God it goes to reason that we can make request of them to pray to God for us as well. Though Holy Traditions may not be found in the Bible the support for them are.

If we think without being biased We know that the Apostles wrote more letter and thing not included in Scripture.

My grand mother wrote my a letter many years ago I know long have that letter but I can tell you a lot of what it said. Because I no longer have the letter does that mean she never wrote what was in it? Now lets say because of what she wrote in that letter ( that no longer can be found) my family develops a habit of telling gathering to telling a certain story eating a certain meal other wise a tradition.Over many years we forget who started this tradition exactly when and how it started and maybe even the exact wording of the story that is told. This is the same as the Holy Traditions Which Apostle said do this when they wrote or just said to did maybe lost but the Church preserved the Tradition of it all the same. Since Scripture was Born Out of this Tradition You can not reject the Tradition without rejecting Scripture For they are the right and left hand of God teaching the Church.