Poll: The bible, word of God and Catholic baggage?

[stray bullet]

Please respond

 

[bbas 64]

Good Day, Stray Bullet

Can not respond....

Catholic baggage "their definition of what their own Traditions are" is just that.

The Bible is the Bible.

Now it could be said that Catholic bagage dictates what the bible is to Catholics... but that is a whole other thread.


As to the word of God, Catholic baggage is not the same:

Ratzinger

“It is important to note that only Scripture is defined in terms of what is: it is stated that Scripture is the word of God consigned to writing. Tradition, however, is described only functionally, in terms of what it does: it hands on the word of God, but is not the word of God.†See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation†in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 194.

The distiction is clear they are not the same..

Peace to u,

Bill




Peace to u,

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

Venom then peace. Nice.

Hey do you suppose those wicked Catholic monks corrupted the Bible so that we don't have the real thing. We don't have any original manuscripts you know. The oldest are only from about the year 1000. No. They match the dead sea scrolls very nicely so I guess those wicked Catholic Monks did a pretty good job of passing on Catholic baggage.

 

[stray bullet]

Good Day, Stray Bullet

Can not respond....

Catholic baggage is just that.

The Bible is the Bible.

Now it could be said that Catholic bagage dictates what the bible is to Catholics... but that is a whole other thread.

Peace to u,

Bill

Well, the bible is Catholic baggage. It was part of the Church since the jews brought over the old texts and Paul wrote the first letters.

Seeing how the bible was entirely within the hands of the clergy, copied over largely by monasteries and Church employees, it is very much "Catholic baggage".

Much like Christmas, which was finally celebrated in the US by protestants in 1870. The Puritans and baptists totally rejected the holiday and wasn't celebrated again until the Catholics brought it over.

Merry Christmas!

 

[stray bullet]

Venom then peace. Nice.

Hey do you suppose those wicked Catholic monks corrupted the Bible so that we don't have the real thing. We don't have any original manuscripts you know. The oldest are only from about the year 1000. No. They match the dead sea scrolls very nicely so I guess those wicked Catholic Monks did a pretty good job of passing on Catholic baggage.

No... no, that can't be the truth!

If the Catholics preserved the truth of the bible for 2000 years, then they might have preserved the truth of the apostles too!! :wink:

 

[thessalonian]

Those must have been protestant monks. Oh wait. Protestants never had monks. In fact there were no protestants to be monks and preserve the Bible before the printing press. Oh wait there were the Albegesians. Some protestants want to claim them as their ancestors. But they put together a distorted bible.

Definitely then the Bible is Catholic baggage that is the word of God.

 

[bbas 64]

[quote="bbas 64":c25d8]Good Day, Stray Bullet

Can not respond....

Catholic baggage is just that.

The Bible is the Bible.

Now it could be said that Catholic bagage dictates what the bible is to Catholics... but that is a whole other thread.

Peace to u,

Bill

Well, the bible is Catholic baggage. It was part of the Church since the jews brought over the old texts and Paul wrote the first letters.

Seeing how the bible was entirely within the hands of the clergy, copied over largely by monasteries and Church employees, it is very much "Catholic baggage".

Much like Christmas, which was finally celebrated in the US by protestants in 1870. The Puritans and baptists totally rejected the holiday and wasn't celebrated again until the Catholics brought it over.

Merry Christmas![/quote:c25d8]

It seems we have defined what bagage is differently, thus the issue.

Baggage = Tradition

Scripture= Bible= Word of God.

Tradition is not the "word of God. I edited my first post to help clearify the RCC's distiction of this issue.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

[quote="stray bullet":23cd0][quote="bbas 64":23cd0]Good Day, Stray Bullet

Can not respond....

Catholic baggage is just that.

The Bible is the Bible.

Now it could be said that Catholic bagage dictates what the bible is to Catholics... but that is a whole other thread.

Peace to u,

Bill

Well, the bible is Catholic baggage. It was part of the Church since the jews brought over the old texts and Paul wrote the first letters.

Seeing how the bible was entirely within the hands of the clergy, copied over largely by monasteries and Church employees, it is very much "Catholic baggage".

Much like Christmas, which was finally celebrated in the US by protestants in 1870. The Puritans and baptists totally rejected the holiday and wasn't celebrated again until the Catholics brought it over.

Merry Christmas![/quote:23cd0]

It seems we have defined what bagage is differently, thus the issue.

Baggage = Tradition

Scripture= Bible= Word of God.

Tradition is not the "word of God. I edited my first post to help clearify the RCC's distiction of this issue.

Peace to u,

Bill[/quote:23cd0]

Ummmm. BBAS I hate to burst your buble. But scripture is a tradition. The Bible says so itself.

2Thes.2
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditionSSSSS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth OR BY LETTER.


:o :

Hey did you catch that. Paul told them to hold fast to the oral traditions as well. Paul apparently wanted them to pass on some baggage. :

 

[thessalonian]

And here Paul is telling the ephesians to pass on baggage.

2Tim.2

[2] and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Doesn't say, what I have wirtten to you, though that is certainly to be passed on as well. Why is Paul telling them to pass along traditions orally as well as in writing? Could it be that there are oral things which are not baggage?

 

[stovebolts]

I was listening to Romans (on CD) yesterday and then again this morning on my long drive into work. For the first time, I was hit with this...

Take a look at Romans 10, for it sets the stage for Romans 11. Here's kinda the way I saw it.

The Promise was made to the Jews and we are to have the greatest respect for them. For it was through God's will, that their heads were turned downward that we might receive mercy.

Who here is a Jew? Paul was a decendent of the Tribe of Benjamin... the weakest tribe among Isreal. Salvation comes through the Lord and the Lord is the root.

We (gentiles) are but the wild olive branches grafted into the tree where the branches were broken off, yet we as humans, wild grafted branches boast and fight among ourselves who is the greatest gentile... I am truly ashamed.

A quick and generic look at history...

God God made Abraham a promise
God Led the Isrealites out of Egypt
God's choosen wandered
God's choosen rejected, accepted, rejected God's commandments.
God fullfilled both promises.
Through that fullfilment, Jesus preached to the Jews, for the promise came through the Jews.
Through the stone cast in zion, the jews stumbled, and salvation was offered to the gentiles.

A revolution occured, and in the first century, there was mass persecution. In the second century, the Orthodox Church was estableshed and was firmly staked out in the third century.
The Church definely split, east and west (Orthodox Catholic, Roman Catholic) after about 700 years (around 1000 AD).
The Roman Catholic split a few hundred years after that and the Protestants evolved out of Luther.
That also split, and we had Calvin... (Ironically, both swayed heavily from Augustines work in the third century)
That split.... and that also split, and yet, even that split... like twigs on a branch...

So, what's my point? Who here is a Jew? Who here is a gentile? Who here is part of the original tree, and who has been grafted from a wild tree? Furthermore, if God had hardened pharoh's heart... and if God had put the heads of the hebrews downward so that they could not see... and this was for the purpose that the Gentiles would receive the promise, then do we really think we have the wisdom to know God's will and purpose?

In other words, look how salvation was offered to the gentiles... It was due to a split and it is always because of faith and grace... Compare that to all the splits.. All the vessels of wrath... and the purpose.

Romans 12:3-5 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Regarding the Jew,
Romans 11:28-32 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but concerning the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are unchangeable. For as you in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God has concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.


Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men.

and we are reminded

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.

for we have been cautioned

Romans 11:20-21 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Be not arrogant, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also not spare you.

Ohhh, but the topic was baggage, which I have been speaking about this whole time... When I travel, I take one bag with just the things I 'think' I need. My wife, she packs everything that we 'might' need, and usually do. Meanwhile, I grumble as I am stuck lifting and carrying them through the airport for I do not realize their worth, but rather view them as a burdon.
It is out of my love and respect for my wife, that I do not argue with her, but rather seek understanding and peace with her in the matter.

I hope this will edify sombody today and may peace abound.

 

[bbas 64]

[quote="stray bullet":0a3f3][quote="bbas 64":0a3f3]Good Day, Stray Bullet

Can not respond....

Catholic baggage is just that.

The Bible is the Bible.

Now it could be said that Catholic bagage dictates what the bible is to Catholics... but that is a whole other thread.

Peace to u,

Bill

Well, the bible is Catholic baggage. It was part of the Church since the jews brought over the old texts and Paul wrote the first letters.

Seeing how the bible was entirely within the hands of the clergy, copied over largely by monasteries and Church employees, it is very much "Catholic baggage".

Much like Christmas, which was finally celebrated in the US by protestants in 1870. The Puritans and baptists totally rejected the holiday and wasn't celebrated again until the Catholics brought it over.

Merry Christmas!

It seems we have defined what bagage is differently, thus the issue.

Baggage = Tradition

Scripture= Bible= Word of God.

Tradition is not the "word of God. I edited my first post to help clearify the RCC's distiction of this issue.

Peace to u,

Bill[/quote:0a3f3]

Ummmm. BBAS I hate to burst your buble. But scripture is a tradition. The Bible says so itself.

2Thes.2
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditionSSSSS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth OR BY LETTER.


:o :

Hey did you catch that. Paul told them to hold fast to the oral traditions as well. Paul apparently wanted them to pass on some baggage. :[/quote:0a3f3]

Good day, Thessalonian

Did search in the greek for "Scripture is tradition" no hits, where is the verse that says "that'?

You must have missed the quote from your Pope...

“It is important to note that only Scripture is defined in terms of what is: it is stated that Scripture is the word of God consigned to writing. Tradition, however, is described only functionally, in terms of what it does: it hands on the word of God, but is not the word of God.†See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation†in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 194.

As to your use of this passage to uphold some assertion, What did Paul tell the Church that is not recorded in the "word of God"? Whom did he tell it to? You will also notice he says "or" not "and"

I am sure you have primary sources that answer both these questions, and they will live up to some objective historical standard, I look forward to reading this documentation.


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[bbas 64]

And here Paul is telling the ephesians to pass on baggage.

2Tim.2

[2] and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Doesn't say, what I have wirtten to you, though that is certainly to be passed on as well. Why is Paul telling them to pass along traditions orally as well as in writing? Could it be that there are oral things which are not baggage?

Good Day,

Same deal what did Paul tell Tim, that is not is Scripture.. provide historical objective soure...

You assert he did, so prove it

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

]

Good day, Thessalonian

Did search in the greek for "Scripture is tradition" no hits, where is the verse that says "that'?

So those protestants who translated the word greek word Paradosis in to tradition were wrong Bill? You know better than the translators what the word should be. It is interesting that in the notes in the NIV it says that the word paradosis should be translated tradition IN ENGLISH BILL (that's what we are talking about here) but because of Protestant bias toward tradition they translate it teachings as do other protestant bibles (though not all such as the KJV and RSV), even though didache is the word in Greek that corresponds to teaching. Sounds like someone has a baggage problem to me.

You must have missed the quote from your Pope...

“It is important to note that only Scripture is defined in terms of what is: it is stated that Scripture is the word of God consigned to writing. Tradition, however, is described only functionally, in terms of what it does: it hands on the word of God, but is not the word of God.†See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation†in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 194.

As to your use of this passage to uphold some assertion, What did Paul tell the Church that is not recorded in the "word of God"? Whom did he tell it to? You will also notice he says "or" not "and"

I am sure you have primary sources that answer both these questions, and they will live up to some objective historical standard, I look forward to reading this documentation.


Peace to u,

Bill

Another Protetant trying to outdo my understanding of Catholicism. I didn't say any particular tradition was the word of God per se and the Bible is the word of God. But the traditions provide a correct understanding of the word of God. Not all the nullifying contradictory "traditions" of protestantism that contradict eachother. Tell me Bill if one decides that a verse in corinthians that speaks of baptizing the dead and so starts the practice, he has the scripture but does he have the word of God? No, he has started a false tradition of what the WOG says. He passes it along to his children. This is what has happened in Protestantism. The Catholic Traidtions however can be traced back to Christ and the Apostles along with the scriptures that are intimately intertwined with them. Protestants have traditions themselves Bill. But you won't admit to it. You will pass understandings of scripture on to your kids and your kids will pass them on to their kids and so on. Some true and some false. They are traditions bill. One must have not only the scriptures but the correct understanding of them (i.e. traditions as to what they mean) in order to have the Word of God!

 

[bbas 64]

]

Good day, Thessalonian

Did search in the greek for "Scripture is tradition" no hits, where is the verse that says "that'?

So those protestants who translated the word greek word Paradosis in to tradition were wrong Bill? You know better than the translators what the word should be. It is interesting that in the notes in the NIV it says that the word paradosis should be translated tradition IN ENGLISH BILL (that's what we are talking about here) but because of Protestant bias toward tradition they translate it teachings as do other protestant bibles (though not all such as the KJV and RSV), even though didache is the word in Greek that corresponds to teaching. Sounds like someone has a baggage problem to me.

[quote:50709]You must have missed the quote from your Pope...

“It is important to note that only Scripture is defined in terms of what is: it is stated that Scripture is the word of God consigned to writing. Tradition, however, is described only functionally, in terms of what it does: it hands on the word of God, but is not the word of God.†See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation†in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 194.

As to your use of this passage to uphold some assertion, What did Paul tell the Church that is not recorded in the "word of God"? Whom did he tell it to? You will also notice he says "or" not "and"

I am sure you have primary sources that answer both these questions, and they will live up to some objective historical standard, I look forward to reading this documentation.


Peace to u,

Bill

Another Protetant trying to outdo my understanding of Catholicism. I didn't say any particular tradition was the word of God per se and the Bible is the word of God. But the traditions provide a correct understanding of the word of God. Not all the nullifying contradictory "traditions" of protestantism that contradict eachother. Tell me Bill if one decides that a verse in corinthians that speaks of baptizing the dead and so starts the practice, he has the scripture but does he have the word of God? No, he has started a false tradition of what the WOG says. He passes it along to his children. This is what has happened in Protestantism. The Catholic Traidtions however can be traced back to Christ and the Apostles along with the scriptures that are intimately intertwined with them. Protestants have traditions themselves Bill. But you won't admit to it. You will pass understandings of scripture on to your kids and your kids will pass them on to their kids and so on. Some true and some false. They are traditions bill. One must have not only the scriptures but the correct understanding of them (i.e. traditions as to what they mean) in order to have the Word of God![/quote:50709]

Good Day, Thess.

That is all fine, But you have dodged the question:


Here it is;

As to your use of this passage to uphold some assertion, What did Paul tell the Church that is not recorded in the "word of God"? Whom did he tell it to? You will also notice he says "or" not "and"

If you have someting that will nswer the basis of the question, then please post. If you can not prove you assertion so be it.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

No, I answered the question quite clearly. You did not grasp it. First of all I have not said that the scriptures do not in some fashion speak of all that is to be carried on in tradition. Thus the or that you think should be some sort of an issue is not. The problem is twofold. Men speak at different levels of abstraction. My wife tells me to go to the store and get milk. I have a certain amount of inherent understanding of what that means. Traditions of a sort that tell me that I can use the car, what roads to take, how to get gas in the car if it is needed, what store to go to etc. etc. I have an interprutation of those words and it will match her words because we have a common understanding of what she means by "go to the store and get milk". There is a tradition that goes along with that. I could in fact write a book about the many facets involved in "go to the store and get milk" complete from how to get to the store, instructions on maintenance and operation of a car, the use of money, etc. etc. But it is not neccessary that it all be written down. And of course when my son gets his license he will understand what "go to the store and get milk" means in the context of our family. There is an understanding that goes with the phrase that makes it explict even at some level down to what store to go to and how to get there.

Scripture is the same. The passages carry with them some level of understanding. They are not all at the same level of detail regarding what they are trying to convey. The full understanding of them comes in the form of sacred oral tradition. Scripture is not explicit in every detail by any means. We are told in Luke 24 that Jesus showed the two men on the way to Emaus everything about him that was recorded in scripture. Well that would be the Old Testament since the New Testament writings had not been written yet. So tell me, where does it speak of his three days in the tomb? It does.

Scripture and oral teaching go hand in hand and I can find implicitly, every single Catholic teaching in scripture. Now can you show me explicitly where scripture says that everything Paul taught would be explicitly written down?

Oral Tradition is about understandings of scripture. The two go hand in hand. One does not have the Word of God, even though he has the Bible, if he does not have a correct understanding of a certain passage. It's not difficult to understand this. His wrong understanding will not contribute anything to his salvation or sanctification. In fact it will neccessarily detract from it.

Blessings.

 

[wavy]

I'm sure that there are things now lost that have been written and some things that are lost that have not been written.

The problem then becomes "how do we know what the tradition is?" Catholics assume they have it because their traditional teachings can be found in the bible (supposedly).

The problem then becomes who has the correct interpretation of scripture. Because the justification for what's written being "proof" that Catholics have the right tradition can be no justification at all to some one else who interprets the bible differently.

 

[thessalonian]

I'm sure that there are things now lost that have been written and some things that are lost that have not been written.

The problem then becomes "how do we know what the tradition is?" Catholics assume they have it because their traditional teachings can be found in the bible (supposedly).

The problem then becomes who has the correct interpretation of scripture. Because the justification for what's written being "proof" that Catholics have the right tradition can be no justification at all to some one else who interprets the bible differently.

Do you honestly think that God left the truth upon which we are set free to the whims of corrupt man's interpretation? Paul gives the mode by which truth is passed on in 2 Tim 2:2. The holy spirit guides this passing on of truth. Nothing can ever be lost because it says in Jude "the faith was delivered to the saints once for all". Thus does not ever need to be restored, is always present on this earth, and is knowable ("you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free". It is not knowable in the protestant system.

Blessings

 

[Solo]

This is a Biblical statement

Thus does not ever need to be restored, is always present on this earth, and is knowable ("you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free".

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:31-32



This is an UnBiblical statement

It is not knowable in the protestant system.

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Peter 1:20-21

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:27

 

[Imagican]

Hey Thess,

You know, I have a couple of Catholic friends that I have asked on numerous occasions where the 'tradition' of the Catholic Church is written. I guess you are just as incapable of answering this question as they were. When i asked them, they just got a dumb look on their faces like they had never thought of that question before.

Tell me Thess, where are these traditions kept? In the minds and memories of those that are taught them? And it's been this way ever since the apostles told these things to those in Rome upon their visits?

Specificaly I refer to such things as 'trinity', confessionals, calling priests Father, beads, waffers, holy water etc...........

 

[wavy]

Do you honestly think that God left the truth upon which we are set free to the whims of corrupt man's interpretation?

I am assuming you think Catholicism is not full of corrupt men..

Paul gives the mode by which truth is passed on in 2 Tim 2:2.

Whether this may or may not be specific to Timothy in this case, it still does not mean Catholicism holds whatever traditional truth Paul spoke of...

Nothing can ever be lost because it says in Jude "the faith was delivered to the saints once for all".

Then please tell me what happened, for instance, to the Scroll of the Wars of יהוה (Numbers 21:14).

Thus does not ever need to be restored, is always present on this earth, and is knowable ("you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free". It is not knowable in the protestant system.

Yet, for all these words, you still have little (no) backing for the tradition (whatever it may be) being preserved in Catholicism. For all you know (apart from what has been told to you), he could be speaking of the oral law of traditional rabbis.

Or he could be referring to traditions of the Nazarene community (Paul himself being a Nazarene according to Acts 24:5) like worship procedures during the sabbaths or feasts.

Take a scripture like this one:

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Master Moshiach יהושׁע , that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Catholic proof texts for their traditions? Or can we read the next verses to see what he means?

2 Thessalonians 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
2 Thessalonians 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
2 Thessalonians 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
2 Thessalonians 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
2 Thessalonians 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Master ha Moshiach יהושׁע, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

The NT letters we believe to be inspired. However, they are just that: letters. They are written to specific groups. Not all that is in them may apply to those outside of whoever Paul wrote to.

We can't spiritualize and over analyze every passage of scripture. Especially not taking something like above and saying, "liek, oh mY gawd! hees tawlken ab0wt teh caffolic tRuhdisHuns!!!"


I am not a protestant, btw.