Rabbinic tradition vs apostolic tradition - dialogue with messianic friend

[DustinQuick]

They also say apostolic tradition equals solely the NT. But the NT itself doesn’t say that.

 

[seagal]

They also say apostolic tradition equals solely the NT. But the NT itself doesn’t say that.

Just a kindly hint Dustin, it would help us if you could click on the Quote button of the post you’re responding to so we know what you’re responding to.

 

[eightydeuce82]

That’s just what Protestants say though, right?

Jesus as the fulfillment of the Torah and teacher of the new covenant came to restore Gods true tradition; and everything God wanted to restore, and wanted the people to know, would be written down (in the NT).

It just doesn’t fly practically because you NEED one interpretive authority, the church.

Gods true tradition WAS the Jewish people and what he told them to do. They were the original City on a hill! they were supposed to be so visible the world would emulate them and please God. They failed many, many, many times. The failed so much they (and when I say they I mean us too) crucified the lord! Even though they had established many safeguards to prevent such a thing from happening. The Talmud much like Sacred Tradition was a means to help understand scripture which and they will tell you this too is hard to understand and if left to mans own devices becomes what ever he wants it to be…see all of protestant history for proof.

Jesus rebuked the Sadducees for doing things in ADDITION to the prescribed law. They had introduced tons of things that were not Gods law and had taken away from Gods law. Jesus was a faithful Jew, and he followed all the rules faithfully. You have to ask why would Jesus (who is God) condemn his own traditions? That would be a contradiction which is impossible. Protestants use this specific text about Jesus condemning tradition as some kind of silver bullet on tradition. Its neither silver or a bullet.

 

[eightydeuce82]

They also say apostolic tradition equals solely the NT. But the NT itself doesn’t say that.

Also I might add here that while the Jews had failed in their mission to unite all of humanity Jesus did show up and he DID found a new Covenant on the Old Covenant. That my friend was the new Passover which is the Eucharist and the New Covenant in his blood. He established a Visible Church as the new Judaism (or a continuation depending on who you ask) and the Church became the new House on a hill. A completely visible thing in which would unite the world. Same mission new face.

This doesn’t mean descent wont happen or bad people or things wont occur by people IN the church. We are human after all.

What it isn’t is an invisible union that can only be seen in the hearts of believers (which cant be seen at all). This is what protestants will tell you…but are they united? Ask them 10 different denominations about baptism…now go ask the other 39,000~.

Christ himself said that it would be** visible **and that people would know it is from God because of its unity. People cant see an invisible unity that only exists in the hearts of believers as we are burdened by the senses. The disunity of the worlds and I say this loosely “churches” does not show a visible unity it shows the opposite.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You can go even earlier

Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to shew their misunderstanding of the passages they then alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think. (Discourses Against the Arians 3.28)

This one is great!

Such is the method of our adversary’s operations; and of the like nature are all these inventions of heresies, each of which has for the father of its own device the devil, who changed and became a murderer and a liar from the beginning. But being ashamed to profess his hateful name, they usurp the glorious Name of our Saviour ‘which is above every name,’ and deck themselves out in the language of Scripture, speaking indeed the words, but stealing away the true meaning thereof; and so disguising by some artifice their false inventions, they also become the murderers of those whom they have led astray. (To the Bishops of Egypt 3)

This one is even greater

Thus each of these heresies, in respect of the peculiar impiety of its invention, has nothing in common with the Scriptures. And their advocates are aware of this, that the Scriptures are very much, or rather altogether, opposed to the doctrines of every one of them; but for the sake of deceiving the more simple sort (such as are those of whom it is written in the Proverbs, ‘The simple believeth every word ),’ they pretend like their 'father the devil ’ to study and to quote the language of Scripture, in order that they may appear by their words to have a right belief, and so may persuade their wretched followers to believe what is contrary to the Scriptures. Assuredly in every one of these heresies the devil has thus disguised himself, and has suggested to them words full of craftiness. The Lord spake concerning them, that ‘there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, so that they shall deceive many .’ Accordingly the devil has come, speaking by each and saying, ‘I am Christ, and the truth is with me;’ and he has made them, one and all, to be liars like himself. And strange it is, that while all heresies are at variance with one another concerning the mischievous inventions which each has framed, they are united together only by the common purpose of lying . For they have one and the same father that has sown in them all the seeds, of falsehood. Wherefore the faithful Christian and true disciple of the Gospel, having grace to discern spiritual things, and having built the house of his faith upon a rock, stands continually firm and secure from their deceits. But the simple person, as I said before, that is not thoroughly grounded in knowledge, such an one, considering only the words that are spoken and not perceiving their meaning, is immediately drawn away by their wiles. Wherefore it is good and needful for us to pray that we may receive the gift of discerning spirits, so that every one may know, according to the precept of John, whom he ought to reject, and whom to receive as friends and of the same faith.

Please cite the author(s) of these amazing quotes!

 

[DustinQuick]

Amen brother. Praise The Lord for you. Thanks for taking the time to add to the discussion. Iron sharpens iron.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Please cite the author(s) of these amazing quotes!

Oh am very sorry Those were made by St. Athanasius

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ATHAN.htm

Lots more where that came from too

 

[DustinQuick]

James White claims St Athanasius taught Sola Scriptura, SMH.

 

[eightydeuce82]

James White claims St Athanasius taught Sola Scriptura, SMH.

Well technically he did ! In light of Catholic tradition! Unfortunately Mr. White was only missing half of the equation Not a big fan of his stuff…he is honestly lacking in the context portion of his brain. I always find it amusing when Protestants take a break from private interpretation and apply the same false concepts on the fathers of the church. Its all in that effort to muddy the waters and rewrite history.

 

[DustinQuick]

Well technically he did ! In light of Catholic tradition! Unfortunately Mr. White was only missing half of the equation Not a big fan of his stuff…he is honestly lacking in the context portion of his brain. I always find it amusing when Protestants take a break from private interpretation and apply the same false concepts on the fathers of the church. Its all in that effort to muddy the waters and rewrite history.

Exactly.

I have heard this as well, when people try to refute development:

Catholic tradition in the 5th century would be unrecognizable to Catholic tradition in the 2nd and first centuries; therefore, to say that the modern Catholic church is the same catholic Church of the apostolic and sub-apostolic periods, is absurd. Hence, the modern church cannot be the Church of the apostles and their successors.

 

[DustinQuick]

Just a kindly hint Dustin, it would help us if you could click on the Quote button of the post you’re responding to so we know what you’re responding to.

Sure, sorry about that!

 

[eightydeuce82]

Exactly.

I have heard this as well, when people try to refute development:

Catholic tradition in the 5th century would be unrecognizable to Catholic tradition in the 2nd and first centuries; therefore, to say that the modern Catholic church is the same catholic Church of the apostolic and sub-apostolic periods, is absurd. Hence, the modern church cannot be the Church of the apostles and their successors.

SEE This is apologetics at its core. You have a great grasp of it. You don’t have to be an expert but you certainly can defend the faith easily if you use your head!

This is exactly the kinds of things that need to be addressed in RCIA and CCD classes for kids. Unfortunately that is rare.

 

[DustinQuick]

SEE This is apologetics at its core. You have a great grasp of it. You don’t have to be an expert but you certainly can defend the faith easily if you use your head!

This is exactly the kinds of things that need to be addressed in RCIA and CCD classes for kids. Unfortunately that is rare.

I’m telling you, man, my mind never stops. That can be good, but sometimes, it’s to a fault. Sometimes, I mull stuff over and fixate until I have an “answer,” that I literally get physically exhausted. Granted, it’s always to do with the things of God, and that’s such a grace - at least my mind is fixed on what matters most. But still, sometimes I burn out and feel like I’m losing it.

I do feel the Spirit is leading me into apologetics, but I have to learn how to be patient and balanced, because the enemy knows where I’m weak and attacks me like crazy. Praise God though, it’s all for my growth and His glory.

eightydeuce, how would you respond to that claim? I told my friend, assuming the Church today is supposed to look like the first century church, is a strawman: it’s not even something the Church teaches about her own development. Then I mentioned Newman and the acorn and oak tree. I don’t think he was satisfied with that.

It’s discouraging.

 

[eightydeuce82]

I’m telling you, man, my mind never stops. That can be good, but sometimes, it’s to a fault. Sometimes, I mull stuff over and fixate until I have an “answer,” that I literally get physically exhausted. Granted, it’s always to do with the things of God, and that’s such a grace - at least my mind is fixed on what matters most. But still, sometimes I burn out and feel like I’m losing it.

I do feel the Spirit is leading me into apologetics, but I have to learn how to be patient and balanced, because the enemy knows where I’m weak and attacks me like crazy. Praise God though, it’s all for my growth and His glory.

eightydeuce, how would you respond to that claim? I told my friend, assuming the Church today is supposed to look like the first century church, is a strawman: it’s not even something the Church teaches about her own development. Then I mentioned Newman and the acorn and oak tree. I don’t think he was satisfied with that.

It’s discouraging.

I’m a military guy so my apologetics is sometimes pretty blunt… might explain why I’ve gotten a few infractions here I probably wont write a book LOL!

It is most certainly a straw man argument. In fact you don’t get much more straw man than that! Of all known things on this earth what remains the same? Literally nothing.

I’ve dealt with the “were just trying to restore the early church” BUT they have no idea what they are doing looks nothing like the early church! Where is you’re Eucharist? Where is your belief that it is truly the body and blood of Christ? I think maybe they forget that the bible didn’t exist in the 1-4th century and try to emulate certain aspects of the faith from that time as they interpret it from the bible. They do this with literally zero historic basis whatsoever.

 

[DustinQuick]

I’m a military guy so my apologetics is sometimes pretty blunt… might explain why I’ve gotten a few infractions here I probably wont write a book LOL!

It is most certainly a straw man argument. In fact you don’t get much more straw man than that! Of all known things on this earth what remains the same? Literally nothing.

I’ve dealt with the “were just trying to restore the early church” BUT they have no idea what they are doing looks nothing like the early church! Where is you’re Eucharist? Where is your belief that it is truly the body and blood of Christ? I think maybe they forget that the bible didn’t exist in the 1-4th century and try to emulate certain aspects of the faith from that time as they interpret it from the bible. They do this with literally zero historic basis whatsoever.

That actually was my response: how do you “do” Church? Do you have a liturgy? Do you have a bishop and/or prebyster with apostolic succession that makes the eucharist valid? Do you believe the eucharist is Christ, truly? If you answer “No” to any of this, then, you’d be considered a heretic even by second century standards, when the APOSTLE JOHN was still…ALIVE.

 

[eightydeuce82]

That actually was my response: how do you “do” Church? Do you have a liturgy? Do you have a bishop and/or prebyster with apostolic succession that makes the eucharist valid? Do you believe the eucharist is Christ, truly? If you answer “No” to any of this, then, you’d be considered a heretic even by second century standards, when the APOSTLE JOHN was still…ALIVE.

That’s the funny thing they will harp that our church doesn’t resemble the early church visibly which is completely ok with me everything grows and matures but the more important aspect of all of this is DO YOU BELIEVE what the early church believed. They do not! In fact besides their belief in Christ and the Catholic definition of the Trinity everything else is a fairly modern novelty and that’s just the mainline protestants. The rest its a free for all!

I always say if you think you know better by picking up a bible and reading it 2000 years after the fact and abandoning roughly 3/4 of Christian faith and practice than those who took their bible study directly from the Apostles (some for decades) then there is no hope for you. It really comes down to that.

 

[eightydeuce82]

That actually was my response: how do you “do” Church? Do you have a liturgy? Do you have a bishop and/or prebyster with apostolic succession that makes the eucharist valid? Do you believe the eucharist is Christ, truly? If you answer “No” to any of this, then, you’d be considered a heretic even by second century standards, when the APOSTLE JOHN was still…ALIVE.

Here’s one that always throws them through a loop.

Ask them if they take the bible literally? You most surly will get a yes probably followed by an everything in the bible happened literally (even if we know it didn’t) fundamentalists still say it happened…then ask them why they don’t take the bible literally? You will get blank stares. Then offer them the scripture on the Eucharist and say exactly what Christ said and why they don’t take him literally and have to insert some opinion or other meaning instead of taking him at his literal word. that’s usually a mind boggler. If its a literally everything happened book and Jesus says that the bread and wine are his body and blood then why not take our lord at his word?

 

[DustinQuick]

That’s the funny thing they will harp that our church doesn’t resemble the early church visibly which is completely ok with me everything grows and matures but the more important aspect of all of this is DO YOU BELIEVE what the early church believed. They do not! In fact besides their belief in Christ and the Catholic definition of the Trinity everything else is a fairly modern novelty and that’s just the mainline protestants. The rest its a free for all!

I always say if you think you know better by picking up a bible and reading it 2000 years after the fact and abandoning roughly 3/4 of Christian faith and practice than those who took their bible study directly from the Apostles (some for decades) then there is no hope for you. It really comes down to that.

Another funny thing, get this: When do you ever see people like James White seeking out to debate Orthodox Christians, and write virulently against them, as he does the Catholic Church? If White was so concerned about getting people to the “real Gospel,” then by definition, he should be just as active and enthusiastic about going after the Orthodox Church, our sister Church with a similar theology and valid sacraments. You NEVER see this though, do you?

There’s something about this Catholic Church. The world (and the ruler of it) hates it as much as so many other Christians.

Isn’t that the ultimate insult the devil uses to mock God?

“I can make those who sincerely love you, hate the very church you built, and attribute your very own Church…to ME.”

That’s the epitome of anti-Christ for ya. Wow.

 

[DustinQuick]

Here’s one that always throws them through a loop.

Ask them if they take the bible literally? You most surly will get a yes probably followed by an everything in the bible happened literally (even if we know it didn’t) fundamentalists still say it happened…then ask them why they don’t take the bible literally? You will get blank stares. Then offer them the scripture on the Eucharist and say exactly what Christ said and why they don’t take him literally and have to insert some opinion or other meaning instead of taking him at his literal word. that’s usually a mind boggler. If its a literally everything happened book and Jesus says that the bread and wine are his body and blood then why not take our lord at his word?

Yeah, that is literally exactly his argument: If you take the eucharist literally, why not, “If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out?”

I said, from a sola scriptura perspective, you’d have a valid point; however, we know that based on 1500 years of TRADITION, how the eucharist was understood from the beginning, and how it is to be interpreted, and it’s not the same context as, “Pluck it out.” So we know for certain *how the eucharist is to be interpreted. That’s the difference: tradition.

You ever heard of Michael Heiser, the ANE language/Bible scholar and editor of Logos Bible Software? My friend is always quoting him as “he knows the truth of the early Church and its appropriate Hebrew context.” To be honest, I can’t find Heiser’s view of the Church, but I remember him being quoted as saying something to the effect of: the Bible can only be rightly understood in its Ancient Near Eastern context, not Catholic tradition, not Protestant, etc."

I would respond by saying, knowing even 10 Semitic languages and the immediate cultural context will only take you so far, when you have to contend with the fact that CHRIST PROMISED One visible, infallible Church; and the Scripture can only truly be understood within the context of the life of that church. And because it is Christ’s Church, and God is the author of history, the readings will include the ANE/Semitic context by default, since God is the one who birthed the Church in that region.

You don’t have to do this either-or stuff; it’s an inclusive, organic, whole - a unity; truly…catholic.

You ever heard Mike Heiser speak on the early church?

 

[ericc]

Exactly.

I have heard this as well, when people try to refute development:

Catholic tradition in the 5th century would be unrecognizable to Catholic tradition in the 2nd and first centuries; therefore, to say that the modern Catholic church is the same catholic Church of the apostolic and sub-apostolic periods, is absurd. Hence, the modern church cannot be the Church of the apostles and their successors.

The Church never taught that it must stay stagnant in order to be true. If everything have been taught in the first century, the Holy Spirit could have taken a vacation then and stop teaching us. But the fact is the Church is Christ’s Body, and he the Head. Morals and science continue to develop and the Church needs to guide the faithful through the minefields of what is permissible and non-permissible behavior. For example, in the 1st century, probably there weren’t any pornography ( I just can’t imagine doing that on clay or papyrus) . There weren’t modern DNA and genetics knowledge. Or heroin injection. The Church will teach us what we can do and not do. We don’t get holed up in the 1st century and become paralyzed when new things/sins get invented/innovated. Like for example what some people would do to justify abortion. Yes, it is down to personal rights vs a being that is being knitted by God. What does James White preach about abortion btw?