Question on Matthew 5:29

[Gorgias]

Odd?.. are you kidding?

Nope. Totally serious. You’re denigrating “oral tradition” as unreliable, while forgetting that this is how the Old Testament came to be.

The traditions of the O.T. were carried until God so chose to write them down. We call that the O.T.

That’s why your position is odd: you’re saying “this is unreliable” and then forgetting that what you’re doing is thereby calling O.T. sources “unreliable”. Are you sure you wanna take that position?

 

[tgGodsway]

Well, you might as well get it over with and pronounce oral tradition into written form and then we can call it extra biblical revelation, seeing that today’s traditions absolutely contradict the written word. The .OT traditions found their place as scripture, what are you waiting for?

 

[Gorgias]

Well, I see that you’re still not responding to the question that I’ve posed. I’ll try one last time, and then recognize that you have little interest in dealing with the implications of the assertions you’ve made: if the source of the OT is ‘oral tradition’, and you assert that “oral tradition is unreliable”, then are you saying that the texts of the Old Testament are unreliable?

seeing that today’s traditions absolutely contradict the written word.

They do not. I get that it’s your opinion that they do, but others have other opinions. Who gave you authority to “bind and loose on earth”?

you might as well get it over with and pronounce oral tradition into written form and then we can call it extra biblical revelation

Nope, that’s not the direction I’m heading. I’m just looking for you to admit that your assertion about oral tradition being unreliable is itself in error. Once we’ve established that you’re being consistent in your assertions, we can move forward with the rest of the discussion of what “Apostolic Teaching” means in the context of the Catholic Church.

 

[tgGodsway]

The text of the Old Testament did not remain oral. The holy Spirit preserved the message for generations to come. Most of the traditions in the CC came centuries after the events. For instance the Apostle Paul taught that all men were born sinners. Yet centuries later the CC decreed Mary was born sinless. This tradition contradicts the inspired word of God. The traditions passed around in the 1st century could only be a carbon copy of their beliefs. A sinless Mary was not found in their traditions.

 

[EndTimes]

IN THE FIRST CENTURY AD -

First Followers of Jesus existed Years before the 1st NT books were Scribed

 

[Gorgias]

The text of the Old Testament did not remain oral. The holy Spirit preserved the message for generations to come.

OK. So, you’re claiming that the Holy Spirit was actively engaged in the activity of “inspiration” across generations and generations? That claim is quite different than the one that the Church makes, which is that inspiration happens in the act of getting the text written.

So, (and I’m sorry for belaboring the point, but it’s important (I think) in understanding your claim about ‘oral tradition’): are you asserting that there never was anything that we can call “oral tradition” about the narratives that later became the Old Testament? That is, are you asserting that the Holy Spirit supernaturally protected everything that became the text of the OT, from the time that it was first told orally until the time that it was put down in writing? (That would make your claim consistent, at least.) Is that what you’re claiming?

tgGodsway:

Most of the traditions in the CC came centuries after the events.

Not true. But, let’s look at your examples:

tgGodsway:

the Apostle Paul taught that all men were born sinners. Yet centuries later the CC desired Mary was born sinless.

Actually, that’s not the claim that Paul is making. It seems that you’re quoting Romans 3:23 here. Let’s see what he actually says:

all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin… For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:9, 22-23)

In the original Greek, we have “Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλληνας πάντας ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι”, which translates literally as “Jews and Greeks – every part – are under sin”. Moreover, in verse 23, we see what “under sin” means: again, we see that πάντες (‘all parts’) – “have sinned and fallen short”.

What Paul is doing here is comparing two systems, and pointing out that there’s not one system that is free of sin. So, yes: both systems – the one with the Mosaic covenant and the one with Jesus’ new covenant – have to deal with sin.

Does that mean that the Catholic Church “changed” what Paul taught? Of course not! The Church still believes that teaching! To say, however, that there are people who have not sinned doesn’t nullify Paul’s teaching. Think about it – it’s common sense! Have babies who die in childbirth sinned? Of course not! Paul is talking about the actual commission of personal sin in both communities, and it doesn’t contradict his teaching to point out that there are members of both communities who haven’t sinned!

So: no “contradiction of the inspired Word of God”. Moreover, I would disagree that “a sinless Mary was not found in the traditions” of the 1st century Church. Wasn’t it that exact Church that declared Mary as ‘kecharitomene’ – she who had been graced to the full and continued to persist in that grace? Is a person who sins “full of grace”? No, brother, I’m afraid you’re mistaken: the early Church realized that something was special about Mary, and proclaimed it in her liturgies and in her oral and written traditions!

 

[tgGodsway]

So: no “contradiction of the inspired Word of God”. Moreover, I would disagree that “a sinless Mary was not found in the traditions” of the 1st century Church. Wasn’t it that exact Church that declared Mary as ‘kecharitomene’ – she who had been graced to the full and continued to persist in that grace? Is a person who sins “full of grace”? No, brother, I’m afraid you’re mistaken: the early Church realized that something was special about Mary, and proclaimed it in her liturgies and in her oral and written traditions!

O’ my goodness. This is a bunch of goboly- gook. To be under sin is a typical Pauline expression. And what does it mean?.. it means to be under sin. … a sinner.

Yes children at an age of ignorance, because of a lack of knowledge, do not sin. Agreed. But they were born into a race that does sin 100 percent. You try to use this special case to make your point, but it doesn’t fly.

Paul went on to say, "Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world and death by sin; and so death passed upon ALL MEN, for that ALL HAVE SINNED. Ro. 5:12. When Paul said all have sinned, you say, but not Mary!.. she was a special case. Her birth was a miracle. The CC, centuries later said so!.. Her life on earth was a sinless miracle you say. Wonderful!.. except that all who knew her never once confirmed or validated this special case, including Jesus Himself. Nope, the original Apostles all knew her well, but never brought it up, not even once. There was no special theology offered to explain this miracle case. There was not special category to put her in. There was no special explanation about her, ever.

And Mary herself, knew she was a sinner, as she went to Jerusalem to offer the customary sin offering. And when she found out that she was with child by the Holy Spirit she sang the appropriate song that God was her savior!

If the traditions of Jesus day tell a different story, I’m sure it would only reflect what the Holy Spirit recorded in the scriptures. If Tradition tells a different story than that of scripture, the tradition is not of God, but of men. This is not a hard topic Gorgias. Why the complexity?

 

[Gorgias]

O’ my goodness. This is a bunch of goboly- gook

OK. That’s your opinion.

Paul went on to say, "Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world and death by sin; and so death passed upon ALL MEN, for that ALL HAVE SINNED. Ro. 5:12. When Paul said all have sinned, you say, but not Mary!.. she was a special case.

OK. Fair enough. Please answer my question, then: has a baby who dies in the act of being birthed actually sinned? And if he has not, then what does “all have sinned” mean? Moreover, in these threads, you’ve asserted the doctrine that Scripture explains Scripture. In Rom 5:12, he uses the same phrase ((ᾧ) πάντες ἥμαρτον) that is used in Rom 3:23, in which the context is clearly the two groups (Jews and Greeks). So… if Scripture explains Scripture, then Rom 5:12 is the same context as Rom 3:23, right? It’s not talking about individuals who have sinned, but that both groups sin.

Nope, the original Apostles all knew her well, but never brought it up, not even once. There was no special theology offered to explain this miracle case. There was not special category to put her in. There was no special explanation about her, ever.

Your case here is thin. There was no “special category” or “special theology” or “special explanation” in the first century or in the Scriptures to define “The Trinity”. And yet, I bet you believe in the Trinity, which only got its “special explanation” beginning in the 3rd century. So… if these are the same situation, why do you believe in one but denigrate the other? Fascinating…

And Mary herself, knew she was a sinner, as she went to Jerusalem to offer the customary sin offering.

It was the sacrifice to remove the ritual impurity associated with childbirth. C’mon, man… first-year theology stuff, there!

If Tradition tells a different story than that of scripture, the tradition is not of God, but of men.

Tradition doesn’t tell the story “saved by faith alone”; 16th century men do. Tradition doesn’t tell the story of a Church that’s led by someone other than Peter; 16th century men do. Tradition doesn’t tell the story of a non-sacramental understanding of the Eucharist; 16th century men do. Which denomination, then, is a “tradition of men”? Hmm…

 

[tgGodsway]

Fair enough. Please answer my question, then: has a baby who dies in the act of being birthed actually sinned? And if he has not, then what does “all have sinned” mean?

I think you and I have had this conversation before. Babies are without any act of sin because they have no knowledge. But all babies come from Adam, a sinner. They go straight to heaven until or unless they gain knowledge of good and evil. But at some point they cannot , not sin. I agree Paul’s statement is in this context of both groups which is to say all men. Jesus became our second Adam who cannot sin. Therefore in that sense we cannot sin either. See 1st. John 3:9 just as in Adam all sin, in Christ all are made righteous. We in that sense cannot sin, that is to say there is no eternal penalty on acts of sin. It is a legal position based on the completed work of Christ on the cross.

 

[AlNg]

These statements are hyperboles for effect.

In Jesus’ time, a common tool used for teaching was hyperbole/exaggeration,

That is what the Protestants (and many Catholics) say about the Eucharist. That it is symbolic and the words of Jesus are hyperboles.

One-third of U.S. Catholics believe in transubstantiation | Pew Research Center

 

[o_mlly]

But all babies come from Adam, a sinner. They go straight to heaven until or unless they gain knowledge of good and evil.

Your argument seems quite reasonable to me until the “straight to heaven” part.

The child inclines to sin as a result of Original Sin. Before the Fall, human nature was merely open to sin. (Jesus and Mary were open to sin. They could but chose not to sin.) The child contracts or inherits the corruption of inclination but lacks the capability to act on this inclination, that is, to commit personal sin.

Whether the child who dies before the commission of personal sin is immediately in heaven is a mystery. We trust in God.

 

[Gorgias]

Babies are without any act of sin because they have no knowledge.

Therefore, a baby who dies “before having knowledge” has no sin and goes straight to heaven. In other words, “all men” doesn’t mean “all men”. It means something different than that. I’m glad we can agree on that.

Jesus became our second Adam who cannot sin. Therefore in that sense we cannot sin either.

No… that doesn’t follow. By that logic, we couldn’t commit a particular type of sin unless Adam committed it, right?

We in that sense cannot sin, that is to say there is no eternal penalty on acts of sin.

Then why did Christ command apostles to forgive peoples’ sins, that they might be forgiven in heaven, in John 20:23?

Your argument seems quite reasonable to me until the “straight to heaven” part.

I was going to ask about this, too. Where in the Bible does it make that assertion? (If it did, then there’d have been no theological musings about the “limbo of the infants” beginning with Augustine and proceeding for centuries…

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Lol! Really? You think they could have done it without God? We believe it is because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Of course not. That was not my thought. The Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, led the Church into the truth. Did they have all the truth?.. YES. it was once for all delivered to them! JUDE 1:3.

Jude 3 New International Version (NIV)
The Sin and Doom of Ungodly People
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

There’s a difference between the “faith” which was once delivered to us and the Truth, to which the Holy Spirit will guide the Church.

John 16:13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Or do you say that “faith” and “truth” are synonyms?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You don’t sound like it. At which point do you think the Holy Spirit stopped leading the Church into all truth and Luther had to step in to help the Holy Spirit?

It’s not that the Holy Spirit stopped leading.

Agreed.

It is that certain members in the Church stop following His lead.

Luther and company.

The Holy Spirit is always leading those willing to be led.

Catholics.

Luther was simply making corrections others refused to make. He himself was on a learning curve by the Holy Spirit no thanks to his Catholic peers at the time.

On the contrary, Luther, ADMITTEDLY, was learning from Satan. Here’s an excerpt from a Protestant website:

"and it’s Luther’s view that’s being presented by the devil, because at the end, Luther responds to the devil by saying: “Devil, you’re right, you’ve got me—that’s a good theological argument; I have to repent. …”

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/luther-battle-devil/

And again, from another website where he claims to outsmart the devil by committing sins:

“Would that I could contrive some great sin to spite the devil, that he might understand that I would not even then acknowledge it and that I was conscious of no sin whatever. We, whom the devil thus seeks to annoy, should remove the whole Decalogue from our hearts and minds.”

To Spite the Devil | Lapham’s Quarterly

But when I ask for a consensus of voices in the N.T. all pointing to a succession of papal authority, you never answer.

Consensus? You mean that the witness of St. John and of St. Paul are not enough? Those are the two most explicit.

John 17:20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

2 Timothy 2 :2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

While, Matthew strongly implies this fact:

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

And you have provided nothing. Not one thing which even begins to suggest that the Church’s authority will end with the Apostles. Show me one verse that even suggests that the Apostles will not pass on their authority.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Nobody on this site answers this very specific question.

Because its an artificial requirement which you apply to this one question. Show me the consensus that Jesus is God. How many Apostles explicitly say, “My Lord and my God”?

Show me the consensus on the Holy Trinity. How many Apostles say, “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”?

Show me the consensus on the idea of faith alone? The only time both those words are put together, Scripture says, “not by faith alone”.

Only redirects! redirects all day long. The bottom line is, … there is absolutely no teaching by our Christian founders on this carefully defined office, at all.

There is absolutely no Teaching on the Holy Trinity in Scripture, either. There is no teaching on faith alone. There is no Teaching stating that the Holy Spirit is God. We get all that from Tradition. In your case, you get faith alone from your false tradition.

It’s not even taught in the most likely places it should be taught such as the book of Ephesians.

Another artificial requirement. Who made you the delineator of where a teaching should be found in Scripture? Can you point to your guidelines?

And there is no validating voice within the apostolic circle. None. Zero. Christ Himself taught nothing about this so called "duel office, " or vicar of Christ concept. none!

If you want to deny the fact that Jesus appointed Simon as the Rock upon which He would build His Church and the Shepherd that would guide His Flock, that’s your business.

All you can point to is the Matthew 16 passage itself. But even that passage doesn’t conclude all that you conclude about it. In other words you read more into it than the passage reads out.

We have more than that one passage, as we’ve noted. Plus we have tons of corroborating Jewish tradition to substantiate our understanding of the passage. While, all you have are your denials.

But as far as who leads the Church, Paul does answer the question. His answer doesn’t include a duel-shepherding concept. Interesting. … He says the Church is build upon “the APOSTLES and prophets, JESUS CHRIST being the chief cornerstone.” Eph. 2:20.

Is St. Peter an Apostle? Where is the denial that St. Peter leads the Church in that passage?

But I can quote this verse all day long. It falls on deaf ears unfortunately. It’s like the word of God doesn’t matter if it upsets the apple cart of pre-conceived theology.

Where’s the denial that St. Peter leads the Church? Where’s your consensus on that idea? You admittedly have one verse into which you read the idea. Where’s your consensus?

 

[tgGodsway]

Or do you say that “faith” and “truth” are synonyms?

No… I agree. faith is the means to finding God’s truth. So what?! is the problem here? However, "the Faith… " as stated in Jude, is one of a few N.T. references referring to the beliefs of Christianity, as opposed to just faith as a means to something.

 

[tgGodsway]

On the contrary, Luther, ADMITTEDLY, was learning from Satan. Here’s an excerpt from a Protestant website:

"and it’s Luther’s view that’s being presented by the devil, because at the end, Luther responds to the devil by saying: “Devil, you’re right, you’ve got me—that’s a good theological argument; I have to repent. …”

The Great Courses Daily – 11 Aug 17

Martin Luther Battles the Devil - The History of Martin Luther​

Martin Luther debated many foes in his lifetime, but none troubled him as much as his nightly debates with Satan himself.

And again, from another website where he claims to outsmart the devil by committing sins:

“Would that I could contrive some great sin to spite the devil, that he might understand that I would not even then acknowledge it and that I was conscious of no sin whatever. We, whom the devil thus seeks to annoy, should remove the whole Decalogue from our hearts and minds.”

With all respect, this is got to be one of the most stupid arguments, ever, from this site. I’m not calling you stupid De_Maria (just in case the word- police want to ban me for three week,) but your argument is absurd.

Luther was on a learning curve. And on the last day of his life, he was still on a learning curve just like you and I. “We see through a glass dimly, but then, face to face” Paul said. 1st. Cor. 13:12.

Secondly, you didn’t provide the larger context from which you pulled the quotes from Luther. I’d like to understand them from that angle.
Blessings,

 

[tgGodsway]

(Jesus and Mary were open to sin. They could but chose not to sin.) The child contracts or inherits the corruption of inclination but lacks the capability to act on this inclination, that is, to commit personal sin.

Whether the child who dies before the commission of personal sin is immediately in heaven is a mystery. We trust in God.

I too agree in part, however, as true as it is that Jesus was open to sin but chose not too, Mary was so much more inclined. She inherited her sin- nature from her sin-sick father passed down from Adam. This is why she cried out to God her savior! Luke 1 who came to save her from the penalty of eternal damnation as He did all who place their faith in Christ.

 

[De_Maria]

No… I agree. faith is the means to finding God’s truth.

Does Scripture say that? Because Scripture says that the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth. I don’t remember seeing that verse which says that faith is the means to finding truth.

So what?! is the problem here? However, "the Faith… " as stated in Jude, is one of a few N.T. references referring to the beliefs of Christianity, as opposed to just faith as a means to something.

There’s a total lack of detail there. The Faith, can be boiled down to that which the Church Teaches. After all, Scripture says:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And, as you noted, faith and truth aren’t synonyms. So, the Catholic Teaching holds. We believe the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all Truth.

 

[De_Maria]

With all respect, this is got to be one of the most stupid arguments, ever, from this site. I’m not calling you stupid De_Maria (just in case the word- police want to ban me for three week,) but your argument is absurd.

Luther was on a learning curve. And on the last day of his life, he was still on a learning curve just like you and I. “We see through a glass dimly, but then, face to face” Paul said. 1st. Cor. 13:12.

Secondly, you didn’t provide the larger context from which you pulled the quotes from Luther. I’d like to understand them from that angle.
Blessings,

Did you know that Luther admitted that he learned a great deal of theology from Satan?