Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Depends what you mean by Tradition.

Again, this question has been answered for you, many times on this thread. But, once more (from the Catechism):

I. The Apostolic Tradition

75 “Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.” (DV 7; cf. ⇒ Mt 28:19-20; ⇒ Mk 16:15)

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”; (DV 7.)
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”. (DV 7.)

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” (DV 7 # 2; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 3, 1: PG 7/1, 848; Harvey, 2, 9.) Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” (DV 8 # 1.)

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” (DV 8 # 1.) “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.” (DV 8 # 3.)

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.” (DV 8 # 3; cf. ⇒ Col 3:16.)

 

[qui_est_ce]

J4,

Go read, from an unbiased source, the history of the early Church. You will find ALL believed in the Real Presence. Reader’s Digest has a real good one. I will give you the title tomorrow. You can get it at the public library. It’s a very, very good read.

Well, I didn’t get to the library yet, but when I do, hopefully tomorrow, I will get you the title. It’s a reliable and accurate history of the early church.

 

[guanophore]

I’m beginning to think that such a thing really doesn’t exist and is something that is introduced in the discussion that has no real substance. I don’t see how it tells catholics anything.

It is not a beginnng, ja4. You NEVER believed it existed. You have persistently stated you believe the Sacred Traditions are the “speculations of men”. For you, they never had any substance. You cannot see how it tells Catholics anything because you have rejected the Authority that Christ appointed over the Church. YOu have rejected the Authority that gave you that bible you are thumping.

Since you think i’m rejecting a commandment in 2 Thess 2:15 then what exactly were the traditions that Paul was referring to in 2 Thess 2:15?

Let’s start with what it is the verse itself. There are two sources of Divine Revelation spoken about here. One is in the writing, the other is oral. Both are of equal authority and importance.

Are you telling me that the catholic church has Divine Revelation outside of Scripure?

This is what I have been telling you for at least four months.

 

[guanophore]

How can this be since the apostles themselves never taught many of the catholic doctrines that you have today?

You have an erroneous preconceived notion, ja4. You believe with all your heart that the ONLY evidence we have of what the Apostles taught is in the NT. This thinking limits your understanding of the whole Divine Revelation. It also makes it impossible for you to perceive and accept the Sacred Traditions as they were handed down. One of those Traditions is that the written revelation was not meant to be separated from the Sacred Oral Tradition from whence it was distilled.

 

[guanophore]

Precisely…

It’s important because someone mentioned that not everything was written in the bible and that is why you can’t soley rely on it as final authority. Then they provided that verse.

But how can you use this as an argument when you can’t tell me what orally has been passed down pertaining to the miracles Christ performed that weren’t written down.

Catholics need to stop using this argument because it just don’t work!

It does not “work” for you because you have rejected the Authority Jesus appointed to lead His church. He did not appoint a “book”, but persons. The answer to the “question” is that Jesus taught His apostles orally, and they transmitted the gospel orally long before it was committed to writing.

 

[guanophore]

The Bible doesn’t say its the only authority. In fact it does point to other authorities in the church. Howerver these authorties are not inspired-inerrant. They can and do err.

So, what you are saying is that either Jesus is a liar, or a weakling?

He certainly intended the NT.

On what basis do you make this assertion?

We know what the Bible is. What exactly is Tradition? Can you give me 2-3 examples of it?

Sacred Tradition is the Teaching that Jesus gave to His apostles. They handed this Teaching on to other faithful men who could teach others also.

Mark 4:34
34 he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

One example of it is that Jesus empowed the Apostles with His own Authority, and by that Authority, the contents of the NT was discerned and promulgated.

 

[guanophore]

Part of the answer can be found in Hebrews 4:12-13; 2 Peter 3:15-16 would be passages to look at. Also the Lord Jesus believe in the OT as being scripture. The church in the 4th century also had criteria they used to determine what the scriptures were.

You should not accept this, ja4, becuase this was CENTURIES after the Apostles died. This is no more a reliable source for the Bible than it is for Marian doctrine!

 

[guanophore]

Are these non biblical sources you quote considered inspired-inerrant?

Which of the references in post # 326 do you consider “non-biblical” ?

 

[guanophore]

??? The Trinity is screamed out in Scripture. How many times do we see that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Trinity Sunday is very Biblical. I don’t think Protestants would have a problem with that.

He said he would use two concepts originating in Sacred Tradition that most Protestants would accept. It was the Magesterium of the Church that changed the “Sabbath” from Saturday to Sunday. This is the same source that defined the canon, and the Marian doctrines. If the source is not authoritative, then all of the determinations should be thrown out, not just some.

 

[guanophore]

Christians are to listen to their leaders and pray for them. These leader-authorties are not infallible nor inspired-inerrant.

So, when Jesus told them “He who hears you hears Me”, he meant to say that He was fallible and errant also?

Something-someone can be an authority without being infallible. This is true in the catholic church where you have priests and bishops who are in authority, have authority and yet can and do make mistakes.

Ah, this is a good point. But it is not the priest or the bishop that define doctrine. This can only be done by the infallible and inerrant teaching authority appointed by Christ, and promised by Him that they would be held in all truth!

I don’t think these would stray from the topic since we need to look at where they are in the scriptures if at all. We know from scripture that there was no one chief leader in the NT church for example. You don’t see that in scripture.

YOU don’t see that in scripture, ja4, because you have already rejected the authority that Jesus appointed over the church, and replaced it by the authority of the book into which you are looking. It is only natural that there are certain parts of the Divine Revelation are missing from your perception.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Part of the answer can be found in Hebrews 4:12-13; 2 Peter 3:15-16 would be passages to look at. Also the Lord Jesus believe in the OT as being scripture. The church in the 4th century also had criteria they used to determine what the scriptures were.

If you believe this, then why do you reject the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible as being the Inspired Word of God?

 

[guanophore]

Each “tradition” must stand on its own.

Where does it say THAT in your bible? That is a baseless and useless assertion. None of them “stand on their own”. All are integrated with one another, and part of the whole Teaching of Christ. The Marian doctrines did not emerge" on their own". They are derived from our increased understanding and definition of the nature of Christ. They cannot be separated from the Sacred Traditions on Christ.

No. We would accept them because the scriptures teach these things.

Where does the Scripture teach that the HS is God, and is equal to the Father and Son? How is it that the Mormons read the same bible, and don’t see this? I know, it belongs on another thread.

Where in the Bible does it state that God changed the Sabbath from Sat. to Sun?

This is why a list of the Traditions of the catholic church for the past 2000 years would be so helpful. Then we could study them at depth and see if they really are apostolic or something else.

Why are you still trying to nail this jello to the wall, ja4? The Kingdom of Heaven is not made of “lists”. It is a way of life that was taught by Jesus to His Apostles. This way of life was passed down by faithful men who entrusted it to others also. There is no need for you to know what these things are. You have already made up your mind that these Traditions are the “speculations of men”. Why waste your time studying such drivel?

If what you say is true would that mean the HS had failed to reveal all that He intended for the canon?

No, it means that there is some Divine Revelation that is not found in the canon of scripture.

What are the oral traditions you are referring to?

That Jesus chose fallible men, trained them, then appointed then to authority over His Church. That He promised to keep them in all truth, and that He has done so. Sacred Tradition teaches us that Jesus is not a liar, or a weakling, despite your assertions to the contrary.

I wish it was possible to make a comparison chart on this then we could see the differences more clearly. I honestly don’t know how would compare all the verses that in some manner speak of the Trintiy and compare it to verses on Mary’s assumption which is not even mentioned in Scripture.

Save yourself a lot of time and trouble! Accept the authority that Jesus appointed! They have already done this work for us.

 

[guanophore]

Then where is this other Revelation that is inspired-inerrant that is not contained in the Scriptures themselves? Can you give me a couple examples of this revelation that is not in the scriptures that is God-breathed?

The remainder of the Divine Deposit of Faith is found in the Sacred Oral Traditions and the Magesterium of the Church. All revelation that is “God-Breathed” is found in the scriptures either implicitly or explicitly. For example, the changing of the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday. There are no Sacred Traditions that contradict the scriptures. There cannot be, since they come from the same source.

Would you happen to know what the first Tradition was after the apostles died?

This is a very interesting question. Since the Sacred Oral Traditions derive rom the Apostolic Teaching, I am not sure it mattered whether the Apostle was dead or alive. One that comes to mind is the Authority of the 12. Teaching and practice outside of what they did and preached was considered heretical.

That might be. But you are making a claim about the oral traditions of the apostles and claiming these oral traditions are revelations to are you not?

Yes.

 

[guanophore]

Couple of questions:
1- What do you mean by Tradition? Can you define it for me?

You can find a definition for this in the Catechism, which represents these teachings.

2- Is it wrong to question Tradition?

Depends on what you mean by that. It is wrong to reject it out of hand, as you have done. YOu don’t even know what it is, or where it is found, if your persistent questions about it are any indication, yet you have already determined that it is “speculations of men”. This is not even a question, but a judgement and a condemnation of the Authority that Jesus appointed for HIs church. In doing this, you reject Christ Himself.

Is this what you mean—refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another;?

Among other things, yes.

Do you have some kind of list of these Traditions in the church so people can know exactly what these Traditions are? After all if you are going to accept something then you should know what it is. Correct?

ja4, do you see in Matt 28 where Jesus told the Apostles to make disciples, and “teaching them all that I have commanded”? It is not a “list”, but a way of life.

Don’t be disingenuous, ja4. You are not going to accept the Sacred Traditions. You have already stated that. Those that receive the authority appointed by Christ don’t need this “list”. The fact that you keep asking for one is continual affirmation that you have rejected this authority.

i remember seeing something but i’m not sure who put it out. Something about one leader in the NT and Mary.

So, you have a “short list” and have already rejected it. Can we call it done now?

Something like that would sure help.

I think no, ja4. You don’t respect the authority of the Vatican either.

I want to see the substance of this claim of Sacred Traditions and know them in depth.

Horse Hockey! I am not really sure WHAT you want, but knowing the TEachings is not it. How do I know this? Because you have already stated repeatedly that the Bible is the ONLY source of information, and that all these other sources are fallible speculations of men. I think you are just being insincere now.

There are a lot of unknowns in regards to these traditions and i have yet to see any depth of knowledge from the catholics i have encountered.

They are unknown to YOU ja4 because you reject the authoritative source from which they come. You do not consider any knowledge outside the scripture as having any depth, so you assume that adherants to the Apostolic Teachings that you can’t see is spurious. You are starting from a false premise, and therefore, will conclude falsely.

Since its agreed among catholics and protestants that at least 66 books of the Bible are inspired-inerrant, i think one of the primary issues are the Sacred Traditions that the catholic church puts at the same level as the Scriptures themselves. This topic may not be the one to dicuss this though.

I agree with you on this point. One of Luther’s goals in excluding certain books was to nullify the authority of the Sacred Tradition.

 

[guanophore]

Depends what you mean by Tradition. When i study the gospels i don’t think of them as “traditions” and i don’t think scholars do either but as history.

This is because you have a warped and incomplete definition of Sacred Tradition. The written word is completely taken from the Sacred Oral Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. There is no other source for it. If you don’t receive it as the revealed word of God, that is another matter. It can be studied as literature, and as history, but that is not the purpose for which it was written.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Where does the Scripture teach that the HS is God, and is equal to the Father and Son? How is it that the Mormons read the same bible, and don’t see this? I know, it belongs on another thread.

Where in the Bible does it state that God changed the Sabbath from Sat. to Sun?

Why are you still trying to nail this jello to the wall, ja4? The Kingdom of Heaven is not made of “lists”. It is a way of life that was taught by Jesus to His Apostles. This way of life was passed down by faithful men who entrusted it to others also. There is no need for you to know what these things are. You have already made up your mind that these Traditions are the “speculations of men”. Why waste your time studying such drivel?

To be honest, some Tradition is in writing, as in Practices and Doctrine.

As Catholic Christians we are required to attend mass on SUNDAYS (we can go more often, I go daily). This Tradition of Sundays is not found in the Bible

As Catholic Christians we believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Although Transubstantiation was not spelled out as doctrin until Council of Trent . This is because Reformers denied the real presence (Except for Martin Luther). John 6:53-61 says we must feed on His flesh, but early Christians showed us HOW. All the early Christians who were eyewitnesses to the Apostles believed in the Eucharist. In the 8th Century, a Basilian monk had doubts about the Real Presence. Whether or not you believe in the miracle that happened, it goes to that’s what everybody believed until the Reformation.

The Doctrine of the Trinity. First **written **account found in 180 by Theophilus. But was generally practiced and believed until Arian heresy denied Trinity. JW’s to this day deny it.

The Bible - NT. Oral Tradition, various letters and Proto Gospels floating around until compiled by St. Jerome approx 385 AD after the Catholic Christian Church held several councils inspired by the HS to determine which books were actually Inspired. The Pope then asked St Jerome to translate it into the common language of the day, Latin, so people could read it.

These are just examples.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2809124]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i remember seeing something but i’m not sure who put it out. Something about one leader in the NT and Mary.

guanophore
So, you have a “short list” and have already rejected it. Can we call it done now?

Where have i rejected it? If anything, we are just starting to discuss these Traditions and the like. I get the impression that most catholics here really don’t understand them themselves.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2809124]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Something like that would sure help.

guanophore
I think no, ja4. You don’t respect the authority of the Vatican either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I want to see the substance of this claim of Sacred Traditions and know them in depth.

guanophore
Horse Hockey! I am not really sure WHAT you want, but knowing the TEachings is not it. How do I know this? Because you have already stated repeatedly that the Bible is the ONLY source of information, and that all these other sources are fallible speculations of men. I think you are just being insincere now.

I suspect that this is an area of discussion you don’t want to engage in. If i were a catholic i wouldn’t either if i believed my church could not err in matters of faith and morals. But nevertheless it is important to see what these Traditions are, what is there origin and when did they begin. If you are going to defend the catholic church you going to have to defend its Sacred Traditions also. Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand in the catholic church.

 

[justasking4]

Lampo;2807292]I know you don’t. Sounds like you need to do some re-thinking. I gave you the definition of Tradition. Did you read it?

yes.

I can also point you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and what it says is Tradition.

I’m aware of that source also. Thanks anyway.

 

[justasking4]

You have an erroneous preconceived notion, ja4. You believe with all your heart that the ONLY evidence we have of what the Apostles taught is in the NT. This thinking limits your understanding of the whole Divine Revelation. It also makes it impossible for you to perceive and accept the Sacred Traditions as they were handed down. One of those Traditions is that the written revelation was not meant to be separated from the Sacred Oral Tradition from whence it was distilled.

One of the problems with the claims of this “Sacred Oral Tradition” claims is that you have no evidence for it outside the scriptures or some written documentation of it. For example, there is no evidence that the apostles ever taught any of the marian doctrines. Since its not in the written scriptures then it does not exist since that is all we have of the apostles writings. It won’t do to claim that there is some kind of “Sacred Oral Tradition” from them since there is no evidence of such a thing. To show me i’m wrong about this " Sacred Oral Tradition" you going to need to produce some written documention from the 1st century itself.

I probably should not have written under this topic since it doesn’t deal with it directly but indirectly. To bad we can’t change the topic to the Bible and Tradition.