Protestants: please stop using the label "Bible-believing"

[benedictus2]

I just did adore it, but I do not do so anymore. I don’t see where I should have clammed up with that in any way.
I was pretty extreme in my adoration (well for German standards) and I do not do it anymore.

Real pity. What a great priviledge to have this chance to have a heart to heart, face to face with God and you’ve decided to turn your back on Him. Well you’re the loser in this case so…

I simply will not bow down to a bread that is supposed to be my Lord. I do not believe this “truth” any more.

Another pity. For someone who claims to believe Christ you refuse to believe what He says right there in several books of the Bible you claim to believe. Some believer you are.

He is risen and He is seated at the right hand of the father in all of His glory.

True. But He said the bread IS HIS BODY and we take HIS WORD FOR IT. iF HE IS CAPABLE OF BECOMING HUMAN, HE IS CAPABLE OF BEING THE BREAD. HE IS GOD AFTER ALL.

But then I suppose you believe in a smaller god. One not quite capable of doing that.

 

[benedictus2]

I think we have to make something clear here. A lot, if not most, Protestants disagree that Peter was the Rock that Jesus referred to (1 Cor. 10:4). Peter in Greek is Petros (masculine, and defined as a detached rock) while “Rock” is petra (feminine, and defined as a solid rock). The Church is therefore built on Christ and not on Peter. Moreover, Peter was not the first apostle who went to Rome, it was Paul, hence the letter to the Romans. Peter merely continued what Paul started in Rome being the “apostle to the Gentiles.”

Naaah. Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic this is how it went. You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church.

The reason we ended up with the petros / petra controvery was precisely becuase in Greek, they assign gender to things. Since petra (rock) in Greek is a feminine name, they had to give the male equiavalent to Peter. Also, by the time of the wring of Matthew’s gospel, the differentiation has ceased to exist and petro and petras both refer to rock.

So yes, Chrit is the foundation but CHRIST HIMSELF WAS THE ONE WHO RENAMED PETER ROCK AND WHO SAID THAT PETER IS THE ROCK UPON WHICH HE WILL BUILD HIS CHURCH.

That is why John and Paul both refer to Peter as Cephas.

 

[benedictus2]

Hey, I just realized that my post contained a lot of typos! LOL! Good thing you were still able to catch what I was trying to say! There were 3 popes if I am not mistaken and it was just settled during a council. Nevertheless, it took a long time before the issue was settled and during that time, the catholics were at a quandary as to whom among the claimant popes was the true pope.

Nope they were not in a quandary. That there were **claimants **means nothing. That is all they were - claimants. They were not valid popes.

There was one in Avignon, one in Rome, and the other I forgot. All I could remember from my reading of Church History was that they even excommunicated each other.

True the Pope moved His seat to avignon which was wrong. But he nontheless remained the pope.
This however does not detract from the fact that there was valid succession.

Also, it would be a very convenient excuse today for the RCC to say that there was only one valid pope during that time and that the other 2 were invalid.

Nope it is not being CONVENIENT. It is a simple fact. If someone set himself up as president, it does not make him/her president. Regardless of her foibles and incompetence, President Arroyo remains the president.

Same with the Pope.

The fact remains that there were 3 popes simultaneously in power at that time.

Nope. There were two other people claiming to be pope but claiming to be one does not make them one.

Imelda Marcos could tell you that she is the queen of England but that will not make her the queen of England.

 

[po18guy]

Hey, I just realized that my post contained a lot of typos! LOL! Good thing you were still able to catch what I was trying to say! There were 3 popes if I am not mistaken and it was just settled during a council.

The Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, settled the matter.

Nevertheless, it took a long time before the issue was settled and during that time, the catholics were at a quandary as to whom among the claimant popes was the true pope. There was one in Avignon, one in Rome, and the other I forgot. All I could remember from my reading of Church History was that they even excommunicated each other.

Was not God overseeing all that happened? And did He not act through His Church to clear man’s mess up?

Also, it would be a very convenient excuse today for the RCC to say that there was only one valid pope during that time and that the other 2 were invalid.

Why? Clearly, only one was chosen by the Holy Spirit. You would have all three sharing the office of Peter? Not!

The fact remains that there were 3 popes simultaneously in power at that time. There were even bishops who assassinated popes in order to gain the seat! There were evil men who became popes and it would be an insult to Peter and the other apostles to claim that those popes were their “infallible” successors.

OK, so when Calvin and Zwingli were in heavy dispute with Luther, should we then say that the reformation had three leaders, leaving protestants in a “quandry”? By your standard, we would have to. So, clearly, the protestant movement is no better than the Catholic in this limited regard. And, weren’t the Mennonites in a “quandry” when they began to split into factions over the use of buttons on clothing? Again, by your standard of human perfection, yes they were.

 

[steve_b]

I think we have to make something clear here. A lot, if not most, Protestants disagree that Peter was the Rock that Jesus referred to (1 Cor. 10:4).

By all means lets be clear.

Where did I even mention 1 Cor 10:4, ? I didn’t as you can see.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5671165&postcount=429

please respond to what I actually posted, and don’t get side tracked.
B:

Peter in Greek is Petros (masculine, and defined as a detached rock) while “Rock” is petra (feminine, and defined as a solid rock).

The Church is therefore built on Christ and not on Peter.

Of course the Church is built on Christ. But who did Christ rename Rock and say He would build His Church on him?
B:

Moreover, Peter was not the first apostle who went to Rome, it was Paul,

What’s your source?
B:

hence the letter to the Romans. Peter merely continued what Paul started in Rome being the “apostle to the Gentiles.”

Paul wrote to Rome, but hadn’t been there yet [Rm 1] Peter wrote from Rome. [1 Pet]

Both apostles went to Rome and built the Church of Rome.

 

[po18guy]

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Peter%2C_Apostle%2C_Saint (section IV)

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Paul%2C_Saint (about halfway down)

Neither of these is clear as to the exact years involved, as they are likely not known or indicated in writing. The matter of timing became important only after the reformers sought to elevate Paul and de-emphasize Peter - out of a rejection of Peter’s office.

I went to the excellent Inside the Bible written by Fr. (now Bishop) Kenneth Baker, S.J. for possible clarification in this regard. He lists the date of Romans as AD 58, written by Paul in Corinth to those in Rome. Paul’s journey to Rome as a captive was recorded by Luke, who accompanied him. Acts was written “probably about 65 AD”. Now, Peter was martyred in 67, so it is likely impossible to know who was there “first”, if that even matters. What does matter is that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and was succeeded by Linus.

What also matters is that Paul had long ago journeyed to Jerusalem to ensure that his teachings were in accord with the early Church there. He spent two weeks with Peter in that regard

Sad it is that so much revisionist history has been cobbled up in support of simple disobedience. The competition is between good and evil, truth and lies, not theological opinions seeking to question established history.

 

[erikd]

Sad it is that so much revisionist history has been cobbled up in support of simple disobedience. The competition is between good and evil, truth and lies, not theological opinions seeking to question established history.

Well said, Po18guy. Protestants of all denominations have, for hundreds of years, argued actual history as if it didn’t happen. To say that something didn’t happen, when it actually happenned, would constitute a misconception or a lie. Many historical arguments fall into this category, such as the Catholic Church putting together the Bible (and writing the New Testament), the Primacy of St. Peter, etc. Since God is not responsible for putting lies into our minds, it must be the work of a demon. Protestants become so passionate about their love of God that they forget about the reality of this love. Sometimes the best kind of charity is a dose of reality, and I hope all protestants reading this consider how their arguments could not possibly come from God if they argue against actual reality.

 

[po18guy]

Well said, Po18guy. Protestants of all denominations have, for hundreds of years, argued actual history as if it didn’t happen. To say that something didn’t happen, when it actually happenned, would constitute a misconception or a lie. Many historical arguments fall into this category, such as the Catholic Church putting together the Bible (and writing the New Testament), the Primacy of St. Peter, etc. Since God is not responsible for putting lies into our minds, it must be the work of a demon. Protestants become so passionate about their love of God that they forget about the reality of this love. Sometimes the best kind of charity is a dose of reality, and I hope all protestants reading this consider how their arguments could not possibly come from God if they argue against actual reality.

The demon does not lead astray with gross errors. Those are too obvious. You see, the serpent was the most subtle of the creatures in the garden. He entices the faithful using tiny little missteps. He then blurs the distinction between sinful Church leaders and the truth that the Church teaches - painting them both with a broad brush. Once a soul is lead off the path, the ego powers the rest of the trip into heresy. Easy.

The evil one quotes scripture. He did to Jesus in his failed temptation. Man uses his own interpretation of scripture as well. A prime example is the late Aryan Nations (neo-nazi) leader, the “Reverend” Richard Butler. He habitually quoted scripture in support of his racist, hate-filled rhetoric. So, does scripture need authoritative interpretation? You bet it does.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Nope. The Church is not the body of believers. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is the body of believers. The Church is the Body of Christ according to Saint Paul. But according to Christ in Matt 16:18 He is building A (one, uno) Church. This He promised to build upon Peter. This He fulfilled at Pentecost. Protestant denominations cannot trace their church back to that day in Pentecost the birthday of the Catholic Church - the
Body of Christ.

Acts 2:46-47
Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart, 47 praising God and enjoying favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

Now which **number **is being spoken of here but the that of the Church. And those who were being saved are being added to that Church.

Hello how are you? Nice to meet you as well

I wanted to comment on what you said - that the Bible doesn’t state the church is the body of believers. If it isn’t the individual parts, each true believer, then what is the church?

Ephesians 4:11-16 -
11 And He gave some {as} apostles, and some {as} prophets, and some {as} evangelists, and some {as} pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

I hope that God’s Word is able to penetrate your heart to see two things, the church is the individuals who believe and trust in Jesus collectively and that Jesus is the head and not Peter.

If you were to do a casual reading of 1 & 2 Peter; you would see exactly how Peter viewed himself in this regard. I encourage you to do so; both epistles are short and the reading is very enjoyable.

God bless your reading if you so chose to. Again, nice to meet you.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Moses was long gone from THEIR sight (except at the transfiguration ) at the time Jesus said

2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, [Mt 23:2-3]

Can you find anywhere in the OT

• where Moses had a seat
• that the scribes and Pharisees sat on it when Moses died
• that everyone was to practice and do whatever they said because they sat on Moses chair

Did anyone object to what Jesus said, or ask Him where He got this notion because it was not written down in the sacred texts? Nope! Jesus was telling them what they already KNEW from oral Tradition. And He validates this oral Tradition as authoritative. And its authority, even though not written down, carried on long after Moses departed this life.

Therefore,

The authority for the Catholic Church, built on Peter, the pope and all the bishops united with him, in unbroken succession from the apostles, carries that same authority. Do what the Catholic Church tells you because Peter’s cathedra is here.

Hi, nice to meet you
Nu 7:89 -
Now when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with Him, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim, so He spoke to him.

This is where the idea of the “seat of Moses” comes from. The Scribes and Pharisees occupy Moses’ position among the people as expounders of the Law; however the Scribes and Pharisees had gone beyond any legitimate authority and were adding human tradition (teaching) to the Word of God. Jesus condemned them to hell in versus 8-36.

As far as Jesus telling them (verse 3): “therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.” but only as it accords with the word of God, which would be the written word at the time; not the traditions of men for which He condemned them.

This should be a warning to all people who would add the traditions of men to the word of God putting unnecessary burdens on people.

You actually have the meaning backwards; probably because you may have just looked at part of the verse and not in its entire context, something we all do from time to time.

I’m not sure how you leaped from oral tradition to Peter primacy; but looks like you may have based that on the misunderstanding of the passage; I don’t know, but that was quite a jump there.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Can you imagine how silly all this must look to an outsider?

Can you imagine a conversation between Sunni and Shi’i Muslims constantly screaming back and forth about whether Ali ibn Abi Talib was the first Imam or the fourth Caliph? I guarantee you that this conversation is every bit as heated as Protestant-Catholic “conversations”.

We are all Christians. We should all try to behave like Christians. Let us distinguish ourselves with our love for each other. Let us show that our (all of us) Lord transforms our lives (and hence our discourse).

I know I can be guilty of this, but just today, in a posting in another thread, I edited out what may be taken as a dig.

This Protestant-Catholic thing is amazing. Part of the intensity comes about because many of us are of European background, and the Reformation came about and divided Europeans. So maybe it’s a family thing. I just don’t see an intense argument going on between Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Maybe it’s geography.

Hello, nice to meet you as well

How do you define what and who a Christian is or is not? Reminds me of the ECT where everyone just joined hands and wa-la we now have more Christians. I’m not picking on you and you made a good point about being charitable.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Hlafdige,

**You wrote: ** Protestants, please continue using the label “Bible-believing”, living up to it and steeping your minds in the Word of God.​

I think that striving to be genuinely “Bible-believing” is a good thing per se, but, logically, this should imply not that one is a member of a denomination or sect that uses the label like some kind of mantra, but that one truly strives to believe what the Bible says. To do this, one has to know what the sacred authors intended (and that God the Holy Ghost meant), not what one reads into what they left as the sacred revelations that comprise the Holy Scriptures. A lot of Christians assume that the Bible accords with their favoured doctrines and opinions, but they cannot all be right!

To know what the Bible teaches one needs to be sure that the Church believed such, from its very inception, at least in incipient form. It just does not do to try to figure these things out by and for merely one’s own satisfaction. For one thing, it is important, to be “Bible-believing” to believe ALL that Holy Scripture teaches; one cannot take passages out of context (of immediate context, of the context of the entire book of Scripture, of the context of all of the Bible, of the context of both Testaments) and fashion doctrines and practices around one’s interpretation of them. If one sets one or some Bible texts against other passages, one especially comes to grief! This is something that sectaries constantly do with the doctrine of Holy Baptism and “dispensations”, to take one two endlessly contentious issues.

I find it impossible to believe that the earliest Christians misunderstood doctrines for which they suffered and were martyred, so shortly after the witness of the Holy Apostles whom the earlier of them even knew personally or at no more than second hand. To write off the witness of the post-Apostolic age as irrelevant to discerning what God bestowed and intended is shocking and terribly presumptuous. And if one analyses that age, one soon realises that its witness is the same, however amplified later, as that of the later Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, not of sects that arose millennia later.

Well, that’s for starters! I was following a tread that has gotten quite stale and centred around one contributor’s ideas, so I “hopped in” here! God bless all of you!

Jerry Parker

 

[Robbinson]

Hi, nice to meet you
Nu 7:89 -
Now when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with Him, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim, so He spoke to him.

This is where the idea of the “seat of Moses” comes from. The Scribes and Pharisees occupy Moses’ position among the people as expounders of the Law; however the Scribes and Pharisees had gone beyond any legitimate authority and were adding human tradition (teaching) to the Word of God. Jesus condemned them to hell in versus 8-36.

As far as Jesus telling them (verse 3): “therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.” but only as it accords with the word of God, which would be the written word at the time; not the traditions of men for which He condemned them.

This should be a warning to all people who would add the traditions of men to the word of God putting unnecessary burdens on people.

You actually have the meaning backwards; probably because you may have just looked at part of the verse and not in its entire context, something we all do from time to time.

I’m not sure how you leaped from oral tradition to Peter primacy; but looks like you may have based that on the misunderstanding of the passage; I don’t know, but that was quite a jump there.

Actually - I believe the seat of moses is in fact a “tradition” that of authority of the pharasies (high priest) taking the authority derived form moses. This is reflected in the Talmud. Jesus acknowledged this “tradition” (not scripture) when telling his disciples and the Jews to do as they are told by the Pharasies who hold this position (honoring this tradition as binding) but warning them to do as they say, not as they “do” as they are hypocrites.

This “seat of moses” passage indeed is supportive of the concept of traditions (not recorded in scripture) as being reflective of binding authority.

Scripture expressly tells us that not everything that Jesus taught was written down (if it were, it would fill many, many books).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Bengoshi]

I would rather reach for God’s point of view than stand on my own. You likely reject the communion of Saints, so to you they are dead. They are not dead to God, so they are able to pray for us. Since they are in Heaven, in perfection, do you suppose that their prayers are efficacious at all?Neither have I ever seen the Holy Spirit. But, I know he’s there.Not even Peter? Think again. And no Pope except Peter even claimed to have been an Apostle. They are, however, the successors to the Apostles. The Apostles had the authority to appoint successors (Matthias for Judas set the example for the successors).

IMAGINE: The last Apostle John, died before there was a bible. How did Christ’s Church exist without a bible or Apostles? Hint: the successors to the Apostles. It is because of their efforts that we have the Church and the bible.

I pray that I can get an Amen!

With regard to the death of John, it is not true that there was no Bible yet because John himself wrote a Gospel and 3 epistles. So NT texts were already in existence, not to mention the Gospel of Mark which was the earliest known Gospel to be written.

As to the prayers of the saints in heaven, I believe that their prayers are definitely efficacious. What I am doubting is whether or not they could hear our prayers, especially if those prayers were only done mentally. Only God is omniscient, not even the angels are, so what more the heavenly saints? I know a usual answer to this that Catholics posit, (I heard this from John Martignoni, a Catholic apologist) namely, that the saints in heaven hear our prayers through God, but wouldn’t that be absurd?! I mean, imagine this, God would tell the saints in heaven that so and so are praing to you for you to pray for them to me. Don’t you think that’s stupid?

As to Peter, of course he was an apostle. However, the popes and other bishops were not. They cannot be infallible. Also, some posters here sent me lots of readings from the popes and RC bishops regarding Peter’s primacy but I woul only accept as infallible scriptural proof texts, not that other writings don’t have bearing, it’s just that they are still fallible.

 

[Bengoshi]

OK, so when Calvin and Zwingli were in heavy dispute with Luther, should we then say that the reformation had three leaders, leaving protestants in a “quandry”? By your standard, we would have to. So, clearly, the protestant movement is no better than the Catholic in this limited regard. And, weren’t the Mennonites in a “quandry” when they began to split into factions over the use of buttons on clothing? Again, by your standard of human perfection, yes they were.

Exactly my point. Nobody calims that Protestant reformers were infallible. They all committed some mistake in one form of another. Moreover, it is only the RCC which claims that it is ONE and UNITED, not any Protestant denomination. However, in spite of the apparent disunity in Protestantism, we still considered each other, regardless of denomination, as brethren in Christ and therefore mambers of His body. Also, I never said that “the protestant movement is no better than the Catholic in this limited regard.” In fact, what I’m trying to say is the other way around.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Hlafdige,

**You wrote: ** Protestants, please continue using the label “Bible-believing”, living up to it and steeping your minds in the Word of God.​

I think that striving to be genuinely “Bible-believing” is a good thing per se, but, logically, this should imply not that one is a member of a denomination or sect that uses the label like some kind of mantra, but that one truly strives to believe what the Bible says. To do this, one has to know what the sacred authors intended (and that God the Holy Ghost meant), not what one reads into what they left as the sacred revelations that comprise the Holy Scriptures. A lot of Christians assume that the Bible accords with their favoured doctrines and opinions, but they cannot all be right!

To know what the Bible teaches one needs to be sure that the Church believed such, from its very inception, at least in incipient form. It just does not do to try to figure these things out by and for merely one’s own satisfaction. For one thing, it is important, to be “Bible-believing” to believe ALL that Holy Scripture teaches; one cannot take passages out of context (of immediate context, of the context of the entire book of Scripture, of the context of all of the Bible, of the context of both Testaments) and fashion doctrines and practices around one’s interpretation of them. If one sets one or some Bible texts against other passages, one especially comes to grief! This is something that sectaries constantly do with the doctrine of Holy Baptism and “dispensations”, to take one two endlessly contentious issues.

I find it impossible to believe that the earliest Christians misunderstood doctrines for which they suffered and were martyred, so shortly after the witness of the Holy Apostles whom the earlier of them even knew personally or at no more than second hand. To write off the witness of the post-Apostolic age as irrelevant to discerning what God bestowed and intended is shocking and terribly presumptuous. And if one analyses that age, one soon realises that its witness is the same, however amplified later, as that of the later Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, not of sects that arose millennia later.

Well, that’s for starters! I was following a tread that has gotten quite stale and centred around one contributor’s ideas, so I “hopped in” here! God bless all of you!

Jerry Parker

Hi Jerry, nice to meet you

I like the way you think in terms of believing the Bible and not taking things out of context and you may have alluded to the Bible will verify itself, not contradict itself…if I’m wrong on the latter, then correct me.

If you apply your methods; how do you account for a Pope as head of the Church as Jesus and the apostles all say it is Jesus? How do you account for a priest forgiving sins when all the apostles say it is God alone? I could go on, but no point in being overwhelming or overbearing.

Concerning the comment that you don’t see how those closest to the earliest church could make mistakes. I would suggest first they are human, under persecution, did not have a completed Bibles as we do nor the study tools that we do; we are at a great advantage. Also, consider the Corinthians as one example who had the apostle Paul teaching them for a few years and yet they were allowing false teachers to corrupt the gospel and the Galatians as well. What about 5 of the 7 churches in Revelation that Jesus had warning about. So the idea that they would somehow have it perfect is very far fetched at best; don’t you think?

 

[Robbinson]

With regard to the death of John, it is not true that there was no Bible yet because John himself wrote a Gospel and 3 epistles. So NT texts were already in existence, not to mention the Gospel of Mark which was the earliest known Gospel to be written.

As to the prayers of the saints in heaven, I believe that their prayers are definitely efficacious. What I am doubting is whether or not they could hear our prayers, especially if those prayers were only done mentally. Only God is omniscient, not even the angels are, so what more the heavenly saints? I know a usual answer to this that Catholics posit, (I heard this from John Martignoni, a Catholic apologist) namely, that the saints in heaven hear our prayers through God, but wouldn’t that be absurd?! I mean, imagine this, God would tell the saints in heaven that so and so are praing to you for you to pray for them to me. Don’t you think that’s stupid?

As to Peter, of course he was an apostle. However, the popes and other bishops were not. They cannot be infallible. Also, some posters here sent me lots of readings from the popes and RC bishops regarding Peter’s primacy but I woul only accept as infallible scriptural proof texts, not that other writings don’t have bearing, it’s just that they are still fallible.

Hi - I don’t know why you assume or believe that angels can’t understand or hear or prayers (and therefore why saints/believers now with Christ can’t hear our prayers). Their prayers rise to heaven per revelation - and they clearly are aware of what transpires on earth (thus their petition to God of when they will be avenged (those who were martyered) again suggesting they know what is going on). In that regard, see Psalm 91:11 (“For he will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways.”) - Here the angels are given charge to guard us - clearly they know what we are doing and what we are asking for?

See alos Let Jer 6:7 (For my angel is with you, and he is watching your lives.)

See also Matt 1:20 (But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit - how did the angel know what Joseph was thinking?

Look at Mat 24:31 (But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.). This suggests an understanding that the angels know more than humans (have more powers and knowledge - though even angels didn’t know this (the timing of Christ’s return).

Or Matt 28:5 (But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.) - How did the angel know this - if not knowing what they were thinking?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Actually - I believe the seat of moses is in fact a “tradition” that of authority of the pharasies (high priest) taking the authority derived form moses. This is reflected in the Talmud. Jesus acknowledged this “tradition” (not scripture) when telling his disciples and the Jews to do as they are told by the Pharasies who hold this position (honoring this tradition as binding) but warning them to do as they say, not as they “do” as they are hypocrites.

This “seat of moses” passage indeed is supportive of the concept of traditions (not recorded in scripture) as being reflective of binding authority.

Scripture expressly tells us that not everything that Jesus taught was written down (if it were, it would fill many, many books).

Blessings,

Brian

Hi Brian
Is the Talmud Scripture? No. Does it support the idea of man-made traditions? Yes. Do the Jews still follow some of these man-made traditions? Yes they do. You actually help to support my point, which I thank you. You cannot overlook the passages that follow; Jesus immediately goes into them for these man-made traditions to the point where He condemns them and those that follow them to hell.

 

[Bengoshi]

Please consider this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3683759&postcount=49

and this one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3688703&postcount=72

Also, this recent opinion has been thoroughly destroyed by referencing the verbiage in the ancient Syriac and Greek language. Matthew was written in Syriac, and the modern translation is where the spirit leads many astray. Please have a read from post 133 onward:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239277&page=6

PLEASE take the time to see the grammar as used in the ancient language that Matthew was actually written in. The Gospels and Acts also show Peter’s primacy in may areas.

Christ’s peace.

Wow, this is A LOT of reading! I need time for this, not to mention my work (I do work too you know ) Hehehe!

 

[Robbinson]

Hi Brian
Is the Talmud Scripture? No. Does it support the idea of man-made traditions? Yes. Do the Jews still follow some of these man-made traditions? Yes they do. You actually help to support my point, which I thank you. You cannot overlook the passages that follow; Jesus immediately goes into them for these man-made traditions to the point where He condemns them and those that follow them to hell.

Clearly Talmud is not scripture - that is in fact the point. If you look at the verses in question, Jesus tells them to follow the instruction of those in the seat of moses (respecting the tradition as there is nothing in scripture that talks of that seat or that authority - and yet it existed by tradition as evidenced in the Talmud). That is the point we are discussing. Sadly, the Pharasees did not practice what they preached.

Let’s go to the Word less there be any doubt:

Matt 23:2 (Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice)

Note the express command by Jesus to follow their teaching (respecting the tradition).

Blessings,

Brian