SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

[Sir_Knight]

I post this in agreement with.

Is tradition a proper source or standard of authority in religion? Does the fact a church has participated in a practice for years prove the practice is good or bad? What does the Bible teach about tradition? Does it matter what the source of a doctrine may be: human or Divine? Should we be traditional or non-traditional? Should we defend a doctrine on the grounds that “we have always done it that way”? Or should we seek what is new and progressive, so we oppose traditional practices as “old-fashioned” and “out of date”? Should we follow Scripture or man-made traditions?

I. Divine Tradition and Divine Authority Are Revealed from God and Require Our Respect

II. Human Tradition and Human Authority Originate with Men and Must Not Be Followed If They Differ from Divine Authority

Human Authority, Commands, Doctrine
Often people follow religious practices that are nowhere found in God’s word. They are different from what God has told us to do. People often reason that these practices are acceptable unless God’s word expressly tells us not to do them. The Bible teaches differently.

Jeremiah 10:23 - The way of man is not in himself. It is not in man who walks to direct his steps. Since we do not think like God does, we cannot possibly know God’s will unless He reveals it [1 Corinthians 2:10-13]. Knowing this, God completely revealed His will for us in the Bible, then He warned us not to follow human wisdom.

Galatians 1:6-9 - Any man is accursed if he preaches a gospel different from what inspired men taught in the first century. If a practice is not included in the gospel, then, for us to say it is acceptable, would be to preach a different gospel.

2 John 9 - Whoever goes beyond and does not abide in Jesus’ teaching, does not have God. To have God we must abide in Jesus’ teaching. Since Jesus’ teaching is revealed in the New Testament, to practice things we cannot find in the gospel would be to separate ourselves from Him.

Revelation 22:18,19 - When we truly respect God’s word, we will refuse to add to or take from what He says. We will do exactly what He says without changing it.

When we study about a certain practice, then, we should not ask, “Where does God say not to do this?” Instead, ask, “Where does God’s word show this act would be acceptable?” If the act cannot be found included in God’s will for us, then we should refuse to participate in it.

[Cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Colossians 3:17; Isaiah 55:8,9; Proverbs 14:12; 2 Corinthians 10:18; 1 Corinthians 1:21-24; 2:5; John 4:23,24; 1 Peter 4:11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Romans 10:1-3; Colossians 2:8.]

Conclusion
Traditions are not inherently good or bad, right or wrong, any more than doctrines, teachings, practices, etc. There are true and false doctrines, true and false practices, and true and false traditions. To say “I am opposed to (or in favor of) tradition” is like saying, “I am opposed to (or in favor of) teachings and practices.” You must know what teachings or practices are referred to and what their source is.

Some people mistakenly think practices are acceptable or should be defended on the grounds a church has practiced it that way for years. Other people object to tradition and seek change for the sake of change. Invariably those people just begin new practices, which soon become new traditions.

Christians should be neither “traditional” nor “non-traditional” regarding our past practices: we should neither accept nor oppose a practice simply because people have done it in the past. The fact that “we have done it that way for years” is not, of itself, proof for or against a practice.

The question is not how long we have practiced something or when it began. The question is: Does it fit what God’s word says? If God’s word requires it, then we dare not leave it off. If it fits God’s word, but is not required, then we should not oppose it or bind it. If it forbidden in God’s word or unauthorized in God’s word, then we must oppose it regardless of how long it has been practiced.

Are you following the tradition received from God for your life, or are you following human tradition that differs from His word? Have you been forgiven of your sins according to God’s word? If so, are you living a faithful life?

Note: We have many other articles on our web site related to this topic. If you would like to have further information, please note the links below.

Condensed please see link below for entire study

gospelway.com/bible/tradition.php

Do you honestly believe that the early church fathers, those taught either directly by the Apostles or their immediate successors, got all of these important points incorrect and a thousand-plus years later people suddenly started getting it correct?

That defies logic to think that God would send His Son to bring the truth to the world and that truth would be lost almost immediately when the Son left only to re-appear a thousand-plus years later.

Remember that nearly every Catholic concept which you take issue with and reject was accepted and followed by the early Christians prior to the bible being assembled in the late fourth century.

If the church was introducing and following all of these incorrect concepts, then there is no reason to believe that they correctly assembled the bible. Yet you accept the bible as the Word of God. Why?

If they got so many other things wrong prior to assembling the bible, then it stands to reason that they got the bible wrong as well since it was their understanding of things which produced the bible and if they understood all of these other things incorrectly, then it stands to reason that their understanding was faulty and that faulty reasoning went into assembling the bible – thus, making it faulty as well.

And if they got the bible right, then it stands to reason that all of these other Catholic teachings which have been around prior to the bible being assembled are also correct.

 

[mercygate]

I agree with no man,that does not agree with the Word of God which is the Holy Scriptures.When I say the flesh is evil,I mean that it is impossible to live in the flesh and not sin.

When you say Christ built His Church on a rock,Im I correct in saying that you mean Peter,if so that is false,for Christ is the Rock.

As for conflicting teachings,I don’t feel Ive posted any.

Of COURSE Christ is THE “Rock”. But He, Himself, calls Peter “this” rock. Catholics understand that the term “rock” refers to the Godhead, to Christ, to Peter’s confession of faith, AND also to Peter. Where Peter is, all of the above are present as well. “My” Church (i.e., Jesus’ Church) is the Church in communion with Peter.

 

[mercygate]

Jesus was speaking of Himself, not Peter.

Matt 16:16-18
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV
The specific words that are key to understanding this are “Peter” and “rock,” for they are both derivatives of the same word meaning rock. But the word translated to “Peter” in the verse above (and below) is petros, and the word translated to “rock” is petra. Also, the word “rock” below has the definite article in the Greek (although it is not seen in the English language translation), whereas the word “Peter” (although capitalized in the English translation) does not have the definite article. (Illustration to follow.)

But simply stated, a petros is a small rock; while petra is a large rock, even a solid foundation of stone.
Matt 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV
Peter: Greek word #4074 Petros (pet’-ros); apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than NT:3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: KJV - Peter, rock. Compare NT:2786.

rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet’-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

(The definite article): Greek word #3588 ho (ho); including the feminine he (hay); and the neuter to (to); in all their inflections; the def. article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): KJV - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc…

Below is a copy of the original Greek words of the key part of the verse. Notice the definite article (tee -Grk. word #3588) preceding “rock”:

Also, the word “and” (between “Peter” and “upon”) in the above illustration is kai in the Greek and can also be translated to the word “but” in the English. This of course changes the way that this verse is commonly understood. Observe:
and: Greek word #2532 kai (kahee); apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words: KJV - and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.
But to give you a sense of the meaning of the word petra (“rock”), there is a city carved out of the side of a mountain, located in modern day Jordan, which is called Petra. “Peter” (petros) was a movable stone, a smaller piece; petra (translated “rock”) was a solid foundation; and incidentally, that Rock was Christ:
1 Cor 10:4
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock [petra] that followed them: and that Rock [petra] was Christ. KJV
Rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet’-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

biblestudysite.com/answers26.htm#2

This shopworn argument about Petros/petra has been shown to be innacurate and is not accepted by Protestant scripture scholars.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This shopworn argument about Petros/petra has been shown to be innacurate and is not accepted by Protestant scripture scholars.

But it’s always trotted out in the hopes some Catholic won’t know about it, and be stunned.

 

[guanophore]

Romans 3:20 “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

So what part of ALL is hard to understand

That “all” does not always mean “all”. For example, we have the parents of John the Baptist:

" In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord. 7 But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years." Luke 1:5-7

How is it that they were righteous before the Lord? If you are a sinner, then how can you be living blameless?

" John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:4-5

We know for a fact that not everyone went out to be baptized by John. So, how does one distinguish between when the word “all” applies literally to every single human being on earth, or not?

Catholics do this by interpreting the Scripture in the light of the Apostolic Teachings. Protestants, having been cut off from this Source of Divine Revelation, often misunderstand what is written, even though they read it with the utmost sincerity, and desire to understand what is meant with a true heart. Jesus did not set it up this way, and the Sacred Writing was never meant to be separated from the sacred tradition that produced it. This is why He prayed for unity.

 

[guanophore]

Same answer I get from a lot of peeps who try to dodge the point.

No Christ did not sin,and He as I just gave you scripture is the only one

No, actually, you did not. You gave a scripture that stated all would be judged by their inability to keep the commandments of God in the flesh, and a scripture that said all had sinned. Then you said "what part of “all” is hard to understand? There was nothing about any exceptions of anyone.

Do you believe infants sin?

Do you believe the disabled sin?

 

[guanophore]

I just love the fundamentalists that come blazing on in here, setting the Christian world straight after 2,000 years of deception. And, they copy/paste ad nauseum profundo words penned by some guy named "Professor/Doctor/Pastor/PhuD/“Norman” or something who actually wrote a book. As if this is proof of anything! I’ll bet I can find more coherence in Mein Kampf! They need de-programmers more than anything, because the demon has turned them from the truth.

I guess all false prophets only lived in the past. I guess that scripture is just something which means nothing, because it means something different to each individual. I lose patience with the ARROGANCE! I get sick of the accusations and lies! I pity these poor, lost, mislead souls that are so superior. Lord, have mercy!

Amen! Take a break. Sit with the Blessed Sacrament. Spend time doing the spiritual warfare rather than debate, as our battle is not flesh and blood.

The forum is for such persons, and we must persevere.

 

[cfrancis]

Also know that I believe what no man says without checking them out from the Word of God

Except for the following, for which you’ve provided no Scriptural support for your belief:

Originally Posted by n2thelight
Matthew, the author of this Gospel, and one of the twelve Disciples, was named Levi before Jesus called him to Discipleship in [Lk 5:27. Mk 2:14, Mt 9:9]. The story of Matthew’s call only appears in three out of the four Gospels. In Luke and Mark’s Gospels, Matthew is called Levi at the time of his call; but in the Gospel of Matthew, the name Levi is not used. There is a good reason for this apparent inconsistency: Luke and Mark were not among the twelve Disciples and were not present to know Matthew before his name was changed from Levi.

Matthew was writing of himself when he wrote of his call to Discipleship [Mt 9:9] and simply referred to himself by his present name (which he had been called by for 13-18 years at the time of this writing). Luke and Mark did not necessarily know that Matthew was Levi when they were divinely inspired to write of events that they themselves were not present to observe. Had St. John wrote of this event in his Gospel he would have no doubt cleared this matter up for us, as John was also one of the twelve Disciples and was present in those days. It is not a remarkable thing that Levi’s name was changed to Matthew, for it was also done with Simon changed to Peter [Mt 10:2], and Saul changed to Paul [Acts 13:9].

Do you have any Scriptural basis for the above? I note you have Scriptue references in your answer, but none of them deal with authorship.

Do you have any Scripture that supports your belief that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired and belongs in the NT canon?

 

[guanophore]

you are correct, if the Bible was written in 5 B.C. However, the greek language evolved over time and during the 1st century, the Koine Greek was used in which Petros and Petra meant the same thing except one was masculine and the other was feminine.

We can’t go studying contemporary American english in order to learn Shakespeare now can we?

And let us add to that our knowledge that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, which did not have a masculine and feminie form for rock.

 

[cfrancis]

Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

So what part of ALL is hard to understand

So, if “all” in Rom 3:23 is an all-inclusive “all” meaning every man, woman and child, then, to stay consistent within the context of that section, we go to Rom 3:24:

being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Put them together:

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Seems, then, if you say “all” in v23 is an all-inclusive, every man, woman and child “all” you believe that same “all” are justified (saved) as well, which means no one is condemned to hell, right?

 

[vern_humphrey]

And let us add to that our knowledge that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, which did not have a masculine and feminie form for rock.

And Jesus spoke Aramaic, regardless of what language the Gospels were written in.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by n2thelight
Jesus was speaking of Himself, not Peter.

Matt 16:16-18
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV
The specific words that are key to understanding this are “Peter” and “rock,” for they are both derivatives of the same word meaning rock. But the word translated to “Peter” in the verse above (and below) is petros, and the word translated to “rock” is petra. Also, the word “rock” below has the definite article in the Greek (although it is not seen in the English language translation), whereas the word “Peter” (although capitalized in the English translation) does not have the definite article. (Illustration to follow.)

But simply stated, a petros is a small rock; while petra is a large rock, even a solid foundation of stone.
Matt 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV
Peter: Greek word #4074 Petros (pet’-ros); apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than NT:3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: KJV - Peter, rock. Compare NT:2786.

rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet’-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

(The definite article): Greek word #3588 ho (ho); including the feminine he (hay); and the neuter to (to); in all their inflections; the def. article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): KJV - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc…

Below is a copy of the original Greek words of the key part of the verse. Notice the definite article (tee -Grk. word #3588) preceding “rock”:

Also, the word “and” (between “Peter” and “upon”) in the above illustration is kai in the Greek and can also be translated to the word “but” in the English. This of course changes the way that this verse is commonly understood. Observe:
and: Greek word #2532 kai (kahee); apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words: KJV - and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.
But to give you a sense of the meaning of the word petra (“rock”), there is a city carved out of the side of a mountain, located in modern day Jordan, which is called Petra. “Peter” (petros) was a movable stone, a smaller piece; petra (translated “rock”) was a solid foundation; and incidentally, that Rock was Christ:
1 Cor 10:4
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock [petra] that followed them: and that Rock [petra] was Christ. KJV
Rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet’-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

biblestudysite.com/answers26.htm#2

Let’s say you are right about Christ being the rock here. How do you explain after Jesus saying that His Church would be built on Him, yet you believe that this Church has fallen into apostasy like you believe it did? how do you explain this?

 

[Ignatius]

Same answer I get from a lot of peeps

At least you get an answer. Why don’t you answer my points and questions? It is clear and apparent that you cannot!

Jesus said to the Apostles, who were the leaders of The Church, “he who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me.” Jesus clearly rejected the kind of division that Protestantism has multiplied into thousands upon thousands of different sects all claiming to have the Holy Spirit as a guide. Jesus founded one Church. He didn’t even leave any writings, he left his teachings in the hands of The Apostles. The fullness of what Jesus taught was passed down through the generations by The Church. Eventually some was written down and became the New Testament. We can be sure of the Truths both written and unwritten in the same way, because it was passed down by The Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

What does the Bible say about this?
Does the Bible say that the Bible is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?
NO! The most that Holy Scripture ever claims for itself is that it is profitable for reproof, for correction and for instruction.

Does the Bible say that The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?
You bet.

The Church and Scripture are inseparable. St. Paul of Tarsus says in his letter to the Ephesians that it is through The Church that the manifold wisdom of God is made known.
The Church was founded by Jesus Christ and was sustained by Sacred Tradition for many many years before a word of the New Testament was ever written. If you check into it, you will find that The Church came well before any of the writings of the New Testament.

You claim to be a bible christian and the Bible says that The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. So why don’t you follow the Bible? Why do you dispute what is written in The Word of God?

If you would like to learn more about the Truths of Jesus Christ and His Church, contact your local parish today. Or you can visit http://www.catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.phtml or http://www.chnetwork.org/

Your Servant in Christ

 

[Gamera]

Scripture contains several ‘rock’ metaphors.

Abraham is the rock *from which the Jewish people were hewn *(Is 51:1)
God is the rock of our salvation (Deut 32:15)
Peter is the rock on which the Church is built (Matt 16:18)

To say “Jesus is the rock, not Peter” is like saying “Jesus is the rock, not Abraham.” It’s mixing metaphors.

 

[juliamajor]

I post this in agreement with.

Is tradition a proper source or standard of authority in religion? Does the fact a church has participated in a practice for years prove the practice is good or bad? What does the Bible teach about tradition? Does it matter what the source of a doctrine may be: human or Divine? Should we be traditional or non-traditional? Should we defend a doctrine on the grounds that “we have always done it that way”? Or should we seek what is new and progressive, so we oppose traditional practices as “old-fashioned” and “out of date”? Should we follow Scripture or man-made traditions?

I. Divine Tradition and Divine Authority Are Revealed from God and Require Our Respe
II. Human Tradition and Human Authority Originate with Men and Must Not Be Followed If They Differ from Divine Authority

Human Authority, Commands, Doctrine
Often people follow religious practices that are nowhere found in God’s word. They are different from what God has told us to do. People often reason that these practices are acceptable unless God’s word expressly tells us not to do them. The Bible teaches differently.

Jeremiah 10:23 - The way of man is not in himself. It is not in man who walks to direct his steps. Since we do not think like God does, we cannot possibly know God’s will unless He reveals it [1 Corinthians 2:10-13]. Knowing this, God completely revealed His will for us in the Bible, then He warned us not to follow human wisdom.

Galatians 1:6-9 - Any man is accursed if he preaches a gospel different from what inspired men taught in the first century. If a practice is not included in the gospel, then, for us to say it is acceptable, would be to preach a different gospel.

2 John 9 - Whoever goes beyond and does not abide in Jesus’ teaching, does not have God. To have God we must abide in Jesus’ teaching. Since Jesus’ teaching is revealed in the New Testament, to practice things we cannot find in the gospel would be to separate ourselves from Him.

Revelation 22:18,19 - When we truly respect God’s word, we will refuse to add to or take from what He says. We will do exactly what He says without changing it.

When we study about a certain practice, then, we should not ask, “Where does God say not to do this?” Instead, ask, “Where does God’s word show this act would be acceptable?” If the act cannot be found included in God’s will for us, then we should refuse to participate in it.

[Cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Colossians 3:17; Isaiah 55:8,9; Proverbs 14:12; 2 Corinthians 10:18; 1 Corinthians 1:21-24; 2:5; John 4:23,24; 1 Peter 4:11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Romans 10:1-3; Colossians 2:8.]

Conclusion
Traditions are not inherently good or bad, right or wrong, any more than doctrines, teachings, practices, etc. There are true and false doctrines, true and false practices, and true and false traditions. To say “I am opposed to (or in favor of) tradition” is like saying, “I am opposed to (or in favor of) teachings and practices.” You must know what teachings or practices are referred to and what their source is.

Some people mistakenly think practices are acceptable or should be defended on the grounds a church has practiced it that way for years. Other people object to tradition and seek change for the sake of change. Invariably those people just begin new practices, which soon become new traditions.

Christians should be neither “traditional” nor “non-traditional” regarding our past practices: we should neither accept nor oppose a practice simply because people have done it in the past. The fact that “we have done it that way for years” is not, of itself, proof for or against a practice.

The question is not how long we have practiced something or when it began. The question is: Does it fit what God’s word says? If God’s word requires it, then we dare not leave it off. If it fits God’s word, but is not required, then we should not oppose it or bind it. If it forbidden in God’s word or unauthorized in God’s word, then we must oppose it regardless of how long it has been practiced.

Are you following the tradition received from God for your life, or are you following human tradition that differs from His word? Have you been forgiven of your sins according to God’s word? If so, are you living a faithful life?

Note: We have many other articles on our web site related to this topic. If you would like to have further information, please note the links below.

Condensed please see link below for entire study

gospelway.com/bible/tradition.php

Ohh my brain hurts from reading your website. I think I contracted brain rot from it. Ah the the intellect and theology there is as deep as a puddle. Oy Vay!!

 

[fdmilkis]

But it’s always trotted out in the hopes some Catholic won’t know about it, and be stunned.

I guess they are knowingly using lies to lead us to the ‘truth’ funny how that works.

 

[po18guy]

Ohh my brain hurts from reading your website. I think I contracted brain rot from it. Ah the the intellect and theology there is as deep as a puddle. Oy Vay!!

I feel guilty commanding the sword of Saint Michael the Archangel against tissue paper! But, enough tissue and the Lilliputians will subdue you.

 

[po18guy]

Amen! Take a break. Sit with the Blessed Sacrament.

Hurry Friday Adoration!

Spend time doing the spiritual warfare rather than debate, as our battle is not flesh and blood. The forum is for such persons, and we must persevere.

Last evening was, uh, not so good for me. End of the day I had one Catholic nerve left and I suffered a paper cut from razor thin theology…

Prayer for the mislead. What a concept! Thanks.

 

[Michael_Francis]

*If you disagree with something in a link or quote, refute it.

Do not, however, allege lying or mock the site or the person who references it.
MF*

 

[Lisdogan]

To Michael Francis

What do you do when someone asks you if you have had psychiatric or psychological treatment?

In Christ