Sola scriptura advocates: Acts 15, & doctrinal guidance?

[guanophore]

That doesn’t matter, since the Holy Spirit clearly knew more was to be written.

What matters is that you are taking the passage out of it’s context. The context of the reference is the example Paul has just written. He is instructing the faithful to use what he has written IN THE LETTER as their example. It was not written to apply to any other writings.

This is a good example of how Sacred Tradition influences how we understand Scripture. The Apostles never taught that the Church should be limited to the writings, and that is how we know that it does not mean what modern American Evangelicals want it to mean.

 

[guanophore]

wussup yall,
The Bible claims that its the final authority…

Great! perhaps you can show us where?

And while you are posting the reference for that, you can post the reference for the website you copied and pasted into your post. You have violated the forum rules by not citing your source, and demonstrated that you are guilty of plagiarism.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I used to hang with some Baptists that espoused this view.

I came to realize that it meant that there were no faithful Catholics left through whom God could work, and when I studied the history of the Church, I realized that was not the case.

My view was derived because of knowing enough history but not quite enough. I knew some balony when I heard it. I wndered it. My dad started teaching me that the real Catholic Church no longer existed. He died in 2000 and missed the return of the TLM, which he loved. He hated the dissenting Catholics running amuck and I know my leaving for a fundamentalist church really hurt him. I regret that he didn’t live long enough to see me tuck my tail and return home, truly humbled by history. To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant. Hmn, I wonder where I heard that before… JHN

 

[guanophore]

SS and Sola Fide are cleary found in the early church writings. When I point that out with direct quotations, as I did in another thread, all I get is that I am reading Protestant theology into the texts. Darned if you, darned if you don’t.

That is because we know that all the Fathers were Catholic.

They regarded Scripture Catholically, which means it was considered one part of a two strand revelation from God, accompanied and complimented by Sacred Tradition.

The idea of abusing the text (whatever that means) kind of goes along those lines. I never said that Paul had the idea of SS, but only that the Holy Spirit, who inspired his words, did. Its debatable whether Paul even knew at times that he was writing scripture or that 2000 years later, we would be reading his words. But the Holy Spirit knew, and was working through him and his correspondance, to give us divine revelation.

I see your point, and I don’t disagree with it. But, when the HS is revealing multiple layers of the Truth, then we find truth in all the layers. Your interpretation can only make sense if there is an application on both levels. If Paul is writing for the future only, then the comment in context is nonsense. However, from the Catholic point of view, when the comment makes sense in it’s context, it is very clear that it does not also apply globally.

 

[guanophore]

Good points. I think Irenaeus’ statement gives good support to at least a form of Sola Scriptura, or possibly just the primacy of Scripture in Against Heresies 3.1.1:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles

This says to me, basically, everything the Apostles taught orally was written down, doing significant damage to the idea of an independent, and different “tradition” in oral form. It is also interesting to see that phrase “improvers of the apostles” which perfectly describes what “Traditions” attempt to do.

This is a good example of a strawman. The Catholic Church does not espouse or teach the notion that Sacred Tradition is “independent and different”. On the contrary, the two are inseparably intertwined and complement one another. It is also false that Sacred Tradition attempts to “improve on the Apostles”. Irenaeus is Catholic, and as such, holds and embraces the Sacred Traditions BECAUSE they come from the Apostles.

I find it interesting that one might look for support for SS in Irenaeus, but reject other passages because they sound too Catholic. As with the Scriptures, one must read in context. The context is the writing of a Catholic bishop fighting heresies.

Chapter X.—Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world.

1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith…
2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

In this passage, part of the same work, Irenaeus describes Sacred Tradition - -it is the preaching and handing down of the One Faith, the same all over the world. He also emphasizes the importance of keeping that tradition undefiled. How come this passage gets left out when the sola scripturists go trolling?

The part on Apostolic Succession gets ignored also:

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. +]
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Its late, after midnight on the east coast. I will return with responses either tonight or by Wednesday. I have work and a sick mother to attend to. Peace.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Good points. I think Irenaeus’ statement gives good support to at least a form of Sola Scriptura, or possibly just the primacy of Scripture in Against Heresies 3.1.1:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles

This says to me, basically, everything the Apostles taught orally was written down, doing significant damage to the idea of an independent, and different “tradition” in oral form. It is also interesting to see that phrase “improvers of the apostles” which perfectly describes what “Traditions” attempt to do.

This all falls apart with one simple point. Show me where it says in the bible that the bible is the fire and pillar of truth. It never says it anywhere. Jesus was Jewish as were the apostles and they held fast to Tradition as well and therefore there is no reason to change God’s plan to what is written only in a collection of writings. Someone, in authority would have to show the passing on of the Church authority to the bible only. Then, history would look much different that what you are erroneously holding to, a modern day concoction made up my angry and jealous men wanting to be Pope, Bishop of their own living rooms…

Something you need to know is that Sacred Tradition can never be different than Sacred Scripture per Church Authority. Sacred Scripture can not exist without Sacred Tradition and Church Authority. Church Authority guides interpretation of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The 3 legged stool analogy applies. They all exist together and no where in history, until the 16th century, did the idea of splitting them come about. To get what you believe you have to protest against God by protesting against the Church He founded, which is quite the vain pursuit of vanity, all is vanity. Protestant teaching seeks to find scripture that supports their believe, not seek to know God’s truth contained within the pages of scripture. In order to do the latter you must keep the entire canon in tact and honestly read and re-read the scripture, making sure to keep it all into context. And that’s only part of it. You need to know Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic. You ought to be an expert and know how to conjugate verbs and all that jazz. Then you need to be an authority on history, from the beginning and throughout the early Church and also be able to point clearly where any break enters with original teaching, thus you’ll have to know everything there is to know about the heresies throughout history. Get my drift yet? You’re on you own, not just with your bible. You’ve isolated yourself and then try to build a tower to God. It’s a vain attempt to recreate God. NOt everyone can be right. So there is only one truth. What makes you believe you are in the “correct” Protesting ecclesial community that is not even really a Church by definition?

Again, no offense intended. It’s late and I’m tired.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Because you use2 Tim. 3:16-17 and 1 Cor. 4:6as evidence that Scripture contains all that we need for salvation. That is NOT what the Scriptures themselves teach, so the onus is upon YOU to prove it.

It is up to you to prove that Tradition is equal to Scripture, not me to prove that scripture is the only source. We both accept that scripture is authoritative, do we not? That is all that SS teaches, is that scripture is our only authoritative source. In his original question, at least Joe is working to prove the Church’s authority because he realizes that he must prove its authority. Kudos to him. He gets it. The burden of proof is on you there. You are assuming Catholic claims, not proving them.

Jesus never taught from tradition? Wanna bet?
Here are some teachings from Jesus and the NT writers taken straight from ORAL Tradition:

Matt. 23:2-3
"The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”

Matt. 2:23
“…that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.”

1 Cor. 10:4
“All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

Jude 9
“When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.”

Since Jesus himself only teaches in one of those 4 you cite, I will deal with that one.

Citing Matthew 23 begs the question, of course, since sola scriptura refers to a period of time when the scriptura exists and when revelation is not being given, i.e., the normative state of the church as she exists after the apostles of the Lord have passed from the scene. But your problem is this: even if we were to assume, against the best evidence, that the idea of ‘Moses’ seat’ came from, say, Moses, you now have to explain how it is that the Jewish ‘magisterium’ could infallibly pass on that tradition, but fallibly pass on the Corban rule Jesus attacked in Mark 7:1-13? They claimed divine authority for that tradition as well–a tradition the Lord Jesus subjected to Scriptural correction. But even beyond this problem (all of which assumes many erroneous things about ‘Moses’ seat’ in the first place), the implicit assertion being made on your part is that if there existed an external authority that could pass on such a binding tradition then, there must be one today as well, and almost magically, that authority is assumed to be held by the modern Roman Catholic hierarchy. That’s a bit of a tortured path, but that is the argument, is it not?”

As for the others, you seem to forget that non Catholics do teach that Apostlic teaching was oral until the scriptures were written, and that anything that made it into the scriptures is truth. Just because some traditions are quoted, doesn’t make all of them true. It makes those particular traditions quoted true, only.

Where do you get off making such a ludicrous claim?

Perhaps you should answer that first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Yes, the apostles were the leaders of the church, the body of Christ. Not the CC.

The Apostles WERE the leaders of the Catholic Church.
Johnny – I can trace my Church back to Christ himself (Matt. 16:16-19).
YOU can’t.

You claim to, but offer no proof. Keep telling yourself that.

Passed is in the past tense. These traditions had already been passed down. Can you name some of them that did not make it into the scriptures, that are necessary for salvation?

This is perhaps the most preposterous thing you’ve said in this dialogue. How does this make the Oral traditions they taught moot?? The Greek word used here is “didasko” which encompasses past AND present tense – not that it matters . .

Your dismissal refuses to directly address the issue. You can’t name a single one tradition that Paul taught them that is not in the scriptures. Please tell what exactly does Paul have in mind when referenencing tradition here. Define what tradition is, please. Has Rome infallibly defined the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or given to you an infallible definition of what ‘tradition’ is? Did Paul teach the Thessalonians about the assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, etc…Is Paul saying hold to scripture and some oral component? Not at all.

In context, his meaning is much simpler. When you read the preceding verses, and take into account the context, Paul’s meaning is simple. Paul had preached the gospel to the Thessalonians in person. He was now writing to them. He has just noted the gospel, and he is saying, ‘Hold to the body of teaching, i.e., the gospel, that I have delivered to you, both in person and by letter.’ The letter, of course, was what we call 1 Thessalonians. The content is the gospel. We are to hold to the faith, the gospel of Jesus Christ, which the Thessalonian believers were privileged to learn, at that unique time of apostolic ministry, both from an apostle (Paul), and from a letter directly from him.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. She remained a perpetual virgin.

WEAK.
Can you name those children?
Bet you can’t.

Bet I can:

Matthew 13:55

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

Matthew 27:56

“Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.”

Mark 6:3

“Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”

Here we see from many different levels that Mary is identified as the “Mother” of James and Joses. This has nothing to do with the translation of the word “brother”. And it is clearly stated again in Matthew 13:55 that James and Joses were Jesus’ brothers! And so unambiguously, on two separate levels, we have the truth of the Word that Mary was mother of Jesus, James and Joses, and that James and Joses was the brother of Jesus. That should settle it for any rational, objective thinker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Purgatory

In 2 Macc. 42-46, we see that Judas Maccabeus prays for the men of his army, killed in battle. Verse 44 says, “… for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.” Matt. 5:25-26 tells us that unless we have settled our matters, we will be “handed over to the prison guard and will not be released until we have paid the last penny.”

We are told in 1 Cor. 3:12-15 that the day (judgment) will disclose the foundation that a person builds upon and how it will be revealed: “If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.”

Additionally, Matt. 12:32 states, “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”, which indicates that there is purification after death for some. Matt. 18:32-35 and Luke 12:58-59 are additional verses that support this doctrine.

All of these verses point to the fact that those in Purgatory will suffer loss but will eventually be released (purified, purged from iniquity, saved). Purgatory is for the believer who dies in God’s favor (without the stain of mortal sin) but is in need of final purification before entering heaven.

In regard to Maccabees:The soldiers that he was making sacrifices for were idolaters, and according to the Roman Catholic Church, idolatry is a mortal sin, correct? Indeed, the Scriptures state that no idolater will ever enter the kingdom of Heaven (Revelation 21:8). Second, his sacrifice for the dead is nowhere prescribed in the Law (i.e. the Torah), and thus, the actions of Judas Maccabaeus were not in accordance with what God would accept.

As for Matthew 12:32-Yet no mention is made of purgatory, and when this passage is compared with parallel ones from the other Gospels it is clear Jesus was talking about the extreme gravity of speaking against the Holy Spirit. All of the Gospel accounts show consistency and none of them give the slightest indication that there are other sins which can be forgiven after death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Saved, in part, by good works.

Matt. 12:50, Matt. 21:28-31, Matt. 25:31:46, Luke 18:19-22, etc.
James 2:14-17:
“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?”
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

I addressed this in another post already.

Matt. 16:18-19
“And so I say to you, you are KEPHA, and upon this KEPHA I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Tell me what Jesus meant by this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
He gave us all those truths, oh and he was speaking to the Apostles only. Where is Apostolic teaching preserved, in the scriptures.

Paul says the Rock was Christ:

3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets:

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

Acts 4:11

11 Jesus is

“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’[a]

Thus, Jesus is the rock, Peter is a stone, and the church is built on Peter’s confession of faith, consistant with the idea that one must confess Christ as Lord to be saved (Romans 10:9-10)

Good night Elvis. Peace to you.

 

[guanophore]

I dunno about that.

As a musician, I would have no problem with the statement of the musical score as the final authority. I would also think that no musicians should have a problem with that statement either.

In music it means that if Beethoven wrote play C# in eighth notes, you as the musician do not have a right to change this to A flat in sixteenth notes. Or of Mozart wrote loud, you do not have a right to change it to soft just because you like it better.

I see your point, but this is true because everyone has a unity of understanding about how the musical score should be understood. If someone came in and redefined essential elements of that score, and there was disagreement about what the symbols meant, then you would have a very discordant product.

This is what Sacred Tradition provides, a common understanding of the meaning of what is written. when that was jettisoned in the Reformation, a very discordant Chrisianity resulted.

 That having been said, there *are* limitation and caveats if you want to use the term pertaining to a musical score.  For starters there is much more to making music than notes and rhythm, and there are a number of issues that the score as the final authority just can not resolve.

And as I think about it, the limitations and caveats with the musical score as the final authority are very similar to the Bible as the final authority. Very similar in fact.

This is a wonderful analogy, and I thank you for it!

You make a good point about there being much more to making music than notes and rhythm. These are important - essential, but not everything can be captured on paper. What the musicians do, and the conductor, and the harmony that results, is an expression of how they enact what is written. That is how Sacred Tradition is - the enactment of what is written.

 

[guanophore]

It is up to you to prove that Tradition is equal to Scripture, not me to prove that scripture is the only source.

How do you figure that? You are the one who is forwarding a modern innovation that has not been believed or practiced in the Church founded by Christ for 2000 years.

Why do we have to “prove” what was delivered to us by the Apostles? Our job is to preserve what was handed down to us. You don’t have to accept the ancient faith of the Apostles. If you wish to remain with those who have departed from it, you are free to do so.

We both accept that scripture is authoritative, do we not?

Yes.

That is all that SS teaches, is that scripture is our only authoritative source.

The reason we cannot accept this is that it is contrary to what was passed down to us from the Apostles. For us, it constitutes heresy.

In his original question, at least Joe is working to prove the Church’s authority because he realizes that he must prove its authority. Kudos to him. He gets it. The burden of proof is on you there. You are assuming Catholic claims, not proving them.

We can’t "assume’ them, either. We can only receive them. The authority placed in the Church comes from Christ. If we deny His creation, we deny Him.

  But your problem is this: even if we were to assume, against the best evidence, that the idea of ‘Moses’ seat’ came from, say, Moses, you now have to explain how it is that the Jewish ‘magisterium’ could infallibly pass on that tradition, but fallibly pass on the Corban rule Jesus attacked in Mark 7:1-13?//quote]

You are jumping tracks, Johnny Reb. You asked for an example of Jesus teaching from Sacred Tradition, and one was provided for you. Now, you are changing what you are asking for!
JohnnyReb;7424301:

They claimed divine authority for that tradition as well--a tradition the Lord Jesus subjected to Scriptural correction.  But even beyond this problem (all of which assumes many erroneous things about ‘Moses’ seat’ in the first place),

Who are you do decide this? Since the concept of Moses’ seat is not in the Scriptures, where to you go for your standards about what it is, and how it functions?

the implicit assertion being made on your part is that if there existed an external authority that could pass on such a binding tradition then, there must be one today as well, and almost magically, that authority is assumed to be held by the modern Roman Catholic hierarchy. That’s a bit of a tortured path, but that is the argument, is it not?”

Oh, yes, I agree. If this were the case, then your assertion would be correct. Fortunately, the authority appointed by Christ to govern the Church is not “magic”, and it is not “self assumed”. All authority comes from God, and He sent the Apostles with His Own Authority. They passed this on to faithful men who could teach others also.

you seem to forget that non Catholics do teach that Apostlic teaching was oral until the scriptures were written, and that anything that made it into the scriptures is truth.

do you think the Word of God that was oral “disappeared” just because some of it was written down? How is it that Jesus failed to keep His promises?

Your dismissal refuses to directly address the issue. You can’t name a single one tradition that Paul taught them that is not in the scriptures.

This is a spurious request. There is no reason for Sacred Tradition to “not be in the Scriptures”. Sacred Tradition informs how we understand the Scriptures.

Please tell what exactly does Paul have in mind when referenencing tradition here. Define what tradition is, please.

It is the lived Gospel, the Word of God at work in the Church. It is the way of life that Paul lived, and exhorted them to emulate. It includes the sacramental life of the Church.

Has Rome infallibly defined the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or given to you an infallible definition of what ‘tradition’ is?

No. there has never been a need for this. The Sacred Traditions have been preserved infallibly by the HS.

Did Paul teach the Thessalonians about the assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, etc…Is Paul saying hold to scripture and some oral component? Not at all.

Now, Johnny, if you have already made up your mind to the contrary, why bother to ask?

…that I have delivered to you, both in person and by letter.’ The letter, of course, was what we call 1 Thessalonians. The content is the gospel. We are to hold to the faith, the gospel of Jesus Christ, which the Thessalonian believers were privileged to learn, at that unique time of apostolic ministry, both from an apostle (Paul), and from a letter directly from him.

Yes, but what does it MEAN to live out the gospel? Sacred Tradition tells us what this means. Gleaning from the Scriptures is what informs your understanding of what it means. And each of our separated brethren gleans differently, and that is why there are so many divergent ideas of what it means to “hold the faith”.

 

[guanophore]

Bet I can:

Matthew 13:55

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

Matthew 27:56

“Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.”

Mark 6:3

“Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”

Here we see from many different levels that Mary is identified as the “Mother” of James and Joses.

You may see that, but we read it differently. In fact, we know that Mary, the Lord’s mother was standing at the foot of the cross with John. The Mary that was standing some way off with Magdelena, the mother of all those kids, was described as a “sister” of the Lord’s mother. Now, as it seems unlikely for two girls of the same parents to be named “Mary”, we know she must be a near relative of hers, married to her brother, or she is a sister of Joseph. Her children are near kin of Jesus, and they were raised together in the same
small villiage, perhaps in the same dwellings.

This is a topic for another thread. James and Joses are the sons of Clopas, the husband of another Mary.

You should have been encouraged to explore this particular departure from the apostolic faith on another thread.

This has nothing to do with the translation of the word “brother”. And it is clearly stated again in Matthew 13:55 that James and Joses were Jesus’ brothers!

Well, we understand it differently, don’t we? We have received from the Apostles that Mary had only one Son. How can it be that they would not know if she had other children?

And so unambiguously, on two separate levels, we have the truth of the Word that Mary was mother of Jesus, James and Joses, and that James and Joses was the brother of Jesus. That should settle it for any rational, objective thinker.

Except that you have left out some of the evidence.

In regard to Maccabees:The soldiers that he was making sacrifices for were idolaters, and according to the Roman Catholic Church, idolatry is a mortal sin, correct?  Indeed, the Scriptures state that no idolater will ever enter the kingdom of Heaven (Revelation 21:8).  Second, his sacrifice for the dead is nowhere prescribed in the Law (i.e. the Torah), and thus, the actions of Judas Maccabaeus were not in accordance with what God would accept.

I think this is off topic too. I think you are trying to support your view that the book is not inspired.

As for Matthew 12:32-Yet no mention is made of purgatory, and when this passage is compared with parallel ones from the other Gospels it is clear Jesus was talking about the extreme gravity of speaking against the Holy Spirit. All of the Gospel accounts show consistency and none of them give the slightest indication that there are other sins which can be forgiven after death.

Also off topic in this thread. I see that you have a number of issues with Catholic faith. Let’s do one per thread, shall we?

Saved, in part, by good works.
I addressed this in another post already.

Both posts being off topic.

Paul says the Rock was Christ:

Off topic as well.

This might be a good point at which you can reflect on your purpose here.

 

[JohnnyReb]

You may see that, but we read it differently. In fact, we know that Mary, the Lord’s mother was standing at the foot of the cross with John. The Mary that was standing some way off with Magdelena, the mother of all those kids, was described as a “sister” of the Lord’s mother. Now, as it seems unlikely for two girls of the same parents to be named “Mary”, we know she must be a near relative of hers, married to her brother, or she is a sister of Joseph. Her children are near kin of Jesus, and they were raised together in the same
small villiage, perhaps in the same dwellings.

This is a topic for another thread. James and Joses are the sons of Clopas, the husband of another Mary.

You should have been encouraged to explore this particular departure from the apostolic faith on another thread.

Well, we understand it differently, don’t we? We have received from the Apostles that Mary had only one Son. How can it be that they would not know if she had other children?

Except that you have left out some of the evidence.

I think this is off topic too. I think you are trying to support your view that the book is not inspired.

Also off topic in this thread. I see that you have a number of issues with Catholic faith. Let’s do one per thread, shall we?

Both posts being off topic.

Off topic as well.

This might be a good point at which you can reflect on your purpose here.

You are right alot of these are off topic. I originally provided them because I was challenged to provide an example of Catholic doctrine/dogma that contradicted scripture, which was changing the subject really. So back to the issue at hand…

 

[babyfacegangsta]

How do you figure that? You are the one who is forwarding a modern innovation that has not been believed or practiced in the Church founded by Christ for 2000 years.

Why do we have to “prove” what was delivered to us by the Apostles? Our job is to preserve what was handed down to us. You don’t have to accept the ancient faith of the Apostles. If you wish to remain with those who have departed from it, you are free to do so.

Yes.

The reason we cannot accept this is that it is contrary to what was passed down to us from the Apostles. For us, it constitutes heresy.

We can’t "assume’ them, either. We can only receive them. The authority placed in the Church comes from Christ. If we deny His creation, we deny Him.
JohnnyReb;7424301:

  But your problem is this: even if we were to assume, against the best evidence, that the idea of ‘Moses’ seat’ came from, say, Moses, you now have to explain how it is that the Jewish ‘magisterium’ could infallibly pass on that tradition, but fallibly pass on the Corban rule Jesus attacked in Mark 7:1-13?//quote]

You are jumping tracks, Johnny Reb. You asked for an example of Jesus teaching from Sacred Tradition, and one was provided for you. Now, you are changing what you are asking for!

Who are you do decide this? Since the concept of Moses’ seat is not in the Scriptures, where to you go for your standards about what it is, and how it functions?

Oh, yes, I agree. If this were the case, then your assertion would be correct. Fortunately, the authority appointed by Christ to govern the Church is not “magic”, and it is not “self assumed”. All authority comes from God, and He sent the Apostles with His Own Authority. They passed this on to faithful men who could teach others also.

do you think the Word of God that was oral “disappeared” just because some of it was written down? How is it that Jesus failed to keep His promises?

This is a spurious request. There is no reason for Sacred Tradition to “not be in the Scriptures”. Sacred Tradition informs how we understand the Scriptures.

It is the lived Gospel, the Word of God at work in the Church. It is the way of life that Paul lived, and exhorted them to emulate. It includes the sacramental life of the Church.

No. there has never been a need for this. The Sacred Traditions have been preserved infallibly by the HS.

Now, Johnny, if you have already made up your mind to the contrary, why bother to ask?

Yes, but what does it MEAN to live out the gospel? Sacred Tradition tells us what this means. Gleaning from the Scriptures is what informs your understanding of what it means. And each of our separated brethren gleans differently, and that is why there are so many divergent ideas of what it means to “hold the faith”.

PLEASEEEEE …wut EXACTLY are these wonderful SACRED TRADITIONS that were passed down???

 

[guanophore]

PLEASEEEEE …wut EXACTLY are these wonderful SACRED TRADITIONS that were passed down???

You might wish to read the forum rules, babyface. If you want to continue posting here, you will have to comply with them. Your condescending tone borders on disrespect.

One of the Sacred Traditions is that the Scriptures are to be understood in the context of the One Faith that produced them.

 

[elvisman]

It is up to you to prove that Tradition is equal to Scripture, not me to prove that scripture is the only source. We both accept that scripture is authoritative, do we not? That is all that SS teaches, is that scripture is our only authoritative source. In his original question, at least Joe is working to prove the Church’s authority because he realizes that he must prove its authority. Kudos to him. He gets it. The burden of proof is on you there. You are assuming Catholic claims, not proving them.

I already DID: Luke 10:16, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 1:12-14

Since Jesus himself only teaches in one of those 4 you cite, I will deal with that one.

Citing Matthew 23 begs the question, of course, since sola scriptura refers to a period of time when the scriptura exists and when revelation is not being given, i.e., the normative state of the church as she exists after the apostles of the Lord have passed from the scene. But your problem is this: even if we were to assume, against the best evidence, that the idea of ‘Moses’ seat’ came from, say, Moses, you now have to explain how it is that the Jewish ‘magisterium’ could infallibly pass on that tradition, but fallibly pass on the Corban rule Jesus attacked in Mark 7:1-13? They claimed divine authority for that tradition as well–a tradition the Lord Jesus subjected to Scriptural correction. But even beyond this problem (all of which assumes many erroneous things about ‘Moses’ seat’ in the first place), the implicit assertion being made on your part is that if there existed an external authority that could pass on such a binding tradition then, there must be one today as well, and almost magically, that authority is assumed to be held by the modern Roman Catholic hierarchy. That’s a bit of a tortured path, but that is the argument, is it not?”

Nice** dance . . .**
Unfortunately for you, the Bible itself smashes your argument about oral tradition not being binding today, as it was in the OT. See the verses I provided above.
You claim to, but offer no proof. Keep telling yourself that.
You keep brushing off all of my challenges with smug remarks, yet you can’t seem to provide any evidence for your positions. It should be pretty easy to trace your Church back to Christ – shouldn‘t it?

Your dismissal refuses to directly address the issue. You can’t name a single one tradition that Paul taught them that is not in the scriptures. Please tell what exactly does Paul have in mind when referenencing tradition here. Define what tradition is, please. Has Rome infallibly defined the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or given to you an infallible definition of what ‘tradition’ is? Did Paul teach the Thessalonians about the assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, etc…Is Paul saying hold to scripture and some oral component? Not at all.

No dismissal here. I’ll give you one that, that is not explicitly in Scripture:
Infant Baptism.
**From the earliest writings of the church Fathers, we see this practice being taught: **Irenaeus, ****Hippolytus, ****Origen, **Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, etc.
**

In context, his meaning is much simpler. When you read the preceding verses, and take into account the context, Paul’s meaning is simple. Paul had preached the gospel to the Thessalonians in person. He was now writing to them. He has just noted the gospel, and he is saying, ‘Hold to the body of teaching, i.e., the gospel, that I have delivered to you, both in person and by letter.’ The letter, of course, was what we call 1 Thessalonians. The content is the gospel. We are to hold to the faith, the gospel of Jesus Christ, which the Thessalonian believers were privileged to learn, at that unique time of apostolic ministry, both from an apostle (Paul), and from a letter directly from him.

Another nice dance, but that’s not what Paul said. He didn’t tell them to hold fast to his words as they did his letters. He said, “…EITHER by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
"Either" doesn’t mean BOTH/AND – it means one OR the other.

Nice try, though . . .

 

[elvisman]

Bet I can:

Matthew 13:55
“Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”
Matthew 27:56
“Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.”
Mark 6:3
“Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”
Here we see from many different levels that Mary is identified as the “Mother” of James and Joses. This has nothing to do with the translation of the word “brother”. And it is clearly stated again in Matthew 13:55 that James and Joses were Jesus’ brothers! And so unambiguously, on two separate levels, we have the truth of the Word that Mary was mother of Jesus, James and Joses, and that James and Joses was the brother of Jesus. That should settle it for any rational, objective thinker.
WRONG.
**The “*****other *****Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being the mother of James and Joses and Salome. She is also described as being Mary’s “sister” (adelphe) in John 19:25.

James is elsewhere described as the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3), which would mean this other Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. However, Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas.

OUCH!!

Now - what do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?
Matt. 27:56** says,* “…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph*, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”.**

Mark 15:40** states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome".**

Finally** – and here’s the knock-out punch -John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister*, Mary the wife of Clopas*, and Mary Magdalene"****.**

**When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Mary is NEVER mentioned in Scripture as having ANY other Children.

 

[elvisman]

In regard to Maccabees:The soldiers that he was making sacrifices for were idolaters, and according to the Roman Catholic Church, idolatry is a mortal sin, correct? Indeed, the Scriptures state that no idolater will ever enter the kingdom of Heaven (Revelation 21:8). Second, his sacrifice for the dead is nowhere prescribed in the Law (i.e. the Torah), and thus, the actions of Judas Maccabaeus were not in accordance with what God would accept.

As for Matthew 12:32-Yet no mention is made of purgatory, and when this passage is compared with parallel ones from the other Gospels it is clear Jesus was talking about the extreme gravity of speaking against the Holy Spirit. All of the Gospel accounts show consistency and none of them give the slightest indication that there are other sins which can be forgiven after death.
Ummmm . . . Johnny – Orthodox Jews have been praying for the dead BEFORE Christ and continue to do so practice to this day.
As for Matt. 12:32, you are applying eisegesis – not exegesis to this passage.
Jesus plainly states that there is the possibility of purification*** AFTER***** death in the age to come.**
Stick** to the text, friend, instead of putting words in Christ’s mouth.
**

Paul says the Rock was Christ:

3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets:

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

Acts 4:11

11 Jesus is

“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’[a]

Thus, Jesus is the rock, Peter is a stone, and the church is built on Peter’s confession of faith, consistant with the idea that one must confess Christ as Lord to be saved (Romans 10:9-10)

Good night Elvis. Peace to you.
Nice try.
In** Isaiah 51:1****, Abraham is referred to as the Rock. God is ****not ****the only person in Scripture who is referred to by this name. **
**So much for your argument that the Rock can only be God . . . **

**Secondly, Jesus called Simon, “Kepha”, not “Petros”. Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic to one another, not Koine Greek. Petros is simply a masculine transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha, which means large mass of rock. Jesus said, “…you are ****Kepha ****and on this Kepha I will build my Church…” There is no distinction of size or importance in these two uses of the word. **
The Rock here is Peter.

 

[elvisman]

wussup yall,
The Bible claims that its the final authority

WHERE does the Bible claim to be the final authority?

**Please provide EVIDENCE of this - ummm . . . y’all . . .

 

[guanophore]

WHERE does the Bible claim to be the final authority?

Please provide EVIDENCE of this - ummm . . . *y’all *. . .

LOL



Well, don’t hold your breath.