Jump to content
IGNORED

It is not in the Bible ?


wincam

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  216
  • Content Per Day:  0.07
  • Reputation:   165
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/19/2015
  • Status:  Offline

I do not think Hoddie is saying he doesnt believe the bible, he just isn't sola scrptura....for that matter neither is the bible which uses quite a few quotes that are not contained in it.

  • The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matthew 2:23). This prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word", was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
  • In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat", but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses.
  • In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul the Apostle refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But, rabbinic tradition does.
  • "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Timothy 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (cf. Exodus 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
  • In 1 Peter 3:19, the Apostle Peter describes Jesus' descent into Hell, drawing directly from a Jewish apocalyptic book, the Book of Enoch, which is not part of the Biblical canon in Catholic or Protestant churches.
  • In the Epistle of Jude 9, a dispute is mentioned between the Archangel Michael and Satan over Moses' body, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and is drawn from oral Jewish tradition.
  • In the Epistle of James 5:17, when recounting the prayers of Elijah described in 1 Kings 17, a lack of rain for three years is mentioned, which is absent from the passage in 1 Kings

So if the bible itself relies on tradition outside of scripture should we not at least consider it? Also, some here need to stop being so defensive whenever someone disagrees with them. Attacking a persons beliefs instead of answering questions does not help one's position or edify God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,458
  • Content Per Day:  0.55
  • Reputation:   729
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  02/09/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/31/1950

12 hours ago, Yowm said:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,

The last three words in the above is the key. and the us it speaks of never gave Mary any prominence 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.37
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Flsnookman said:

So if the bible itself relies on tradition outside of scripture should we not at least consider it?

No, the Bible does NOT rely on tradition.  What is the Bible? It is Divine revelation given to prophets and apostles supernaturally (2 Pet 1:19-21). All they did was write the words given to them by the Holy Spirit.  

The "traditions of the apostles" cannot be in conflict with the written Word of God. The veneration of Mary does not exist in the Bible, therefore it is a man-made tradition, and it is idolatrous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   244
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/07/2016
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, Davida said:

So  you don't believe in the Word of GOD , so you must follow the rules and dogma of your RCC as it is the your HIGHEST authority -- not the Word of GOD-this is the method and teaching of any other Cult. Very mistaken path Hoddie.

Where did I say I didn't beleive in the word of God?  You know David, Yowm has yet to answer what would seem to be a couple of simple questions for beleiver of the Sola Scriptura doctrine, so how about you? If so, I'll repost it for ya.

Could you give me a book, Chapter, or verse from the bible that tells me the Gospel of Mark was written by someone named Mark, and this Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit in writing that Gospel? 

 

Peace

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   244
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/07/2016
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, Davida said:

I repeat my question Hoddie --What is  " the Holy See" --- Tell us, define , describe , illuminate me from your perspective, and  please give us the scriptural basis for it.

And we will continue our discussion on the Holy See Davida, after as I said before, when you give me your stance reguarding if you beleive that the bible is sufficient as a sole rule of faith. If you do, can you show the book , chapter and verse that proclaims this? For our discussion on this matter to resume, knowing where you stand is of the utmost importance.

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  216
  • Content Per Day:  0.07
  • Reputation:   165
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/19/2015
  • Status:  Offline

13 hours ago, Davida said:

That is a false claim by the Rcc. It is in the O.T.  --Twice God made water come from the Rock: Ex 17:1-7; Num 20:2-13
This Rock was specifically referred to in the Old Testament: "And they remembered that God was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer." Psalm 78:35
 

I thought the jews followed the pillar of smoke/flame, not the other way around...

Exodus 13:21  And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
15 hours ago, Flsnookman said:

I do not think Hoddie is saying he doesnt believe the bible, he just isn't sola scrptura....for that matter neither is the bible which uses quite a few quotes that are not contained in it.

  • The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matthew 2:23). This prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word", was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
  • In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat", but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses.
  • In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul the Apostle refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But, rabbinic tradition does.
  • "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Timothy 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (cf. Exodus 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
  • In 1 Peter 3:19, the Apostle Peter describes Jesus' descent into Hell, drawing directly from a Jewish apocalyptic book, the Book of Enoch, which is not part of the Biblical canon in Catholic or Protestant churches.
  • In the Epistle of Jude 9, a dispute is mentioned between the Archangel Michael and Satan over Moses' body, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and is drawn from oral Jewish tradition.
  • In the Epistle of James 5:17, when recounting the prayers of Elijah described in 1 Kings 17, a lack of rain for three years is mentioned, which is absent from the passage in 1 Kings

So if the bible itself relies on tradition outside of scripture should we not at least consider it? Also, some here need to stop being so defensive whenever someone disagrees with them. Attacking a persons beliefs instead of answering questions does not help one's position or edify God. 

Well none of that has any thing to do with Sola Scriptura.  I can show you a ton of other extra-biblical reference works the Bible draws upon.  But that does not really speak to this issue.

Sola Scriptura has to do with the Bible's authority in the life of a Christian.  Bible believing NT Christians believe that the Bible is the final and sole arbiter of all matters pertaining to Christian faith and practice.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
3 hours ago, Hoddie said:

And we will continue our discussion on the Holy See Davida, after as I said before, when you give me your stance reguarding if you beleive that the bible is sufficient as a sole rule of faith. If you do, can you show the book , chapter and verse that proclaims this? For our discussion on this matter to resume, knowing where you stand is of the utmost importance.

 

Peace

the IS sufficient as the sole rule of faith.   Paul says the following:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17)

Paul tells us that the Scripture are profitable for the purpose of making us complete, fully equipped for our service to the Lord.  If there were any other authority capable or profitable to that same end, that would have been the ideal time to mention it.

And this is not just talking about the OT Scriptures, as Paul also referred to the Gospel of Luke as Scripture (I Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7) and Peter also referred to Paul's teachings as Scripture, while Paul was still alive (II Pet.  3:15-16). 

And what about Jesus?  What was Jesus stance on the issue?   Jesus appealed to Scriptures when He said, "It is written,"  over 90 times.  When Jesus confronted Satan in the Wilderness, He appealed to the Word of God each time He was tempted (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

In Matt. 15, in one of many of Jesus' conflicts with the religious leaders of His day, He confronted and rebuked them for placing their traditions in higher authority than the Scriptures (15: 3,6).

The Bible makes no appeal to any higher authority than itself.  None of the writers point to a body of tradition as being equal in or possessing more authority than the Scriptures.  And they never appeal to any "tradition" as an infallible  rule of the Christian faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   244
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/07/2016
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Paul tells us that the Scripture are profitable for the purpose of making us complete, fully equipped for our service to the Lord.  If there were any other authority capable or profitable to that same end, that would have been the ideal time to mention it.

Yes Shiloh357, I am aware of 2Tim. 3:15-16. I am also aware how often it is used to profess Sola Scriptura (Bible alone). However, this passage simply says Scripture is inspired and useful. Catholics totally agree. Water is necessary for my existence but is it all I need? Most certainly not. The passage says nothing against Tradition. Interestingly, there was no New Testament written back then so if this passage was saying Scripture is all we need, it would be saying that the New Testament wasn't necessary, which is obviously untrue.

And this is not just talking about the OT Scriptures, as Paul also referred to the Gospel of Luke as Scripture (I Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7) and Peter also referred to Paul's teachings as Scripture, while Paul was still alive (II Pet. 3:15-16).

You have a bit of a problem here Shiloh. As I stated above, there was no New Testament written back then. The early Church was about community and unity. They came together around the Eucharist in the Breaking of Bread. They didn't have a Bible, just a bunch of letters and stories, and the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), which contained the Deuterocanonical books that were omitted from Protestant Bibles after the Reformation in the 1500's. Even after the Church decided on thebookas of the bible in 397 AD most people could not read until well into the Middle Ages. In those days they would look at the stained glass pictures in the Churches and hear the stories about Jesus' life.

And what about Jesus? What was Jesus stance on the issue? Jesus appealed to Scriptures when He said, "It is written," over 90 times. When Jesus confronted Satan in the Wilderness, He appealed to the Word of God each time He was tempted (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

Okay, lets talk abot Jesus. He (Jesus) did not write any books of the Bible. Jesus chose NOT to write but rather to build his Church, and 30-60 years later He inspired the members of his Church write down the Gospels. Several hundred years after that, He inspired members of his Church to decide what books belong in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is the only authority. However, the Bible does say that Jesus founded his Church and gave it all authority. (Mat 16:18)

In Matt. 15, in one of many of Jesus' conflicts with the religious leaders of His day, He confronted and rebuked them for placing their traditions in higher authority than the Scriptures (15: 3,6).

The Jews went to great pains to ensure that their worship would conform to the instructions which God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. God's call to his people was a call to holiness: "be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44; 19:2). In their zeal for holiness many elders developed elaborate traditions which became a burden for the people to carry out in their everyday lives. The Scribes and Pharisees were upset with Jesus because he allowed his disciples to break with their ritual traditions by eating with unclean hands. They sent a delegation all the way from Jerusalem to Galilee to bring their accusation in a face-to-face confrontation with Jesus.

Jesus dealt with their accusation by going to the heart of the matter -- by looking at God's intention and purpose for the commandments. Jesus gave an example of how their use of ritual tradition excused them from fulfilling the commandment to honor one's father and mother. If someone wanted to avoid the duty of financially providing for their parents in old age or sickness they could say that their money or goods were an offering "given over to God" and thus exempt from any claim of charity or duty to help others. They broke God's law to fulfull a law of their own making. Jesus explained that they void God's command because they allowed their hearts and minds to be clouded by their own notions of religion.

Jesus accused them specifically of two things. First of hypocrisy. Like actors, who put on a show, they appear to obey God's word in their external practices while they inwardly harbor evil desires and intentions. Secondly, he accused them of abandoning God's word by substituting their own arguments and ingenious interpretations for what God requires. They listened to clever arguments rather than to God's word. Jesus refers them to the prophecy of Is. (29:31) where the prophet accuses the people of his day for honoring God with their lips while their hearts went astray because of disobedience to God's laws.

The Bible makes no appeal to any higher authority than itself. None of the writers point to a body of tradition as being equal in or possessing more authority than the Scriptures. And they never appeal to any "tradition" as an infallible rule of the Christian faith.

I disagree. Here are some biblical passages that Catholics feel speak for the need to observe tradition as well as Scripture. It is important to note that Catholics believe that the traditions they have embraced are not contrary to the Bible, we use tradition to clarify positions that are outlined and intimated there.

"...hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (not only written) 2 Thes 2:15

"Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me." Not written but spoken. 2 Tim 1:13

".I would rather not use pen and ink, but hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face." 2 John 12

"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." John 16:12

2 Tim 3:16 does not condemn tradition.

Mat 15 condemns the traditions of men not apostolic tradition.

There are many other things that Jesus did. . the whole world could not hold the books that could be written. Jn 21:25

I have sent my angel to announce these things to you in the churches. Rev 22:16

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions . . . even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 15:1 . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

Galatians 1:9 . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

1 Thessalonians 2:9 . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.

Acts 8:14 . . . Samaria had received the word of God . . .

1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .

2 Peter 2:21 . . . the holy commandment delivered to them.

Jude 3 . . . the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
1 hour ago, Hoddie said:

Yes Shiloh357, I am aware of 2Tim. 3:15-16. I am also aware how often it is used to profess Sola Scriptura (Bible alone). However, this passage simply says Scripture is inspired and useful. Catholics totally agree. Water is necessary for my existence but is it all I need? Most certainly not. The passage says nothing against Tradition. Interestingly, there was no New Testament written back then so if this passage was saying Scripture is all we need, it would be saying that the New Testament wasn't necessary, which is obviously untrue.

The water comparison is not a very good one.   The doctrine of Sola Scriptura isn't that the Bible is all we need, spiritually.  It is that the Bible is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice.   I need the Bible, the Holy Spirit, the blood of Jesus, community of believers, etc.  for a healthy walk with the Lord.

I Tim. 3:15-16 is appealing solely to the Bible as being all we need to be equipped for service. It appeals to no other authority for that purpose.  The text indicates that the Bible is what makes us complete and fully equipped for service.

Quote

You have a bit of a problem here Shiloh. As I stated above, there was no New Testament written back then. The early Church was about community and unity. They came together around the Eucharist in the Breaking of Bread. They didn't have a Bible, just a bunch of letters and stories, and the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), which contained the Deuterocanonical books that were omitted from Protestant Bibles after the Reformation in the 1500's. Even after the Church decided on thebookas of the bible in 397 AD most people could not read until well into the Middle Ages. In those days they would look at the stained glass pictures in the Churches and hear the stories about Jesus' life.

There was no cannon, but there were, even before the death of Paul and Peter, an understanding that Paul's epistles were Scripture.  Paul referred to Luke as "Scripture."   And Luke took from both Matthew and Mark, so it is fair to consider that they would have assumed at least the first three Gospels to be Scripture before the end of the first century.

And contrary to what you said, the Chruch did not "decide" on the books of the Bible.  The Church does not sit in judgment on the Bible and decide what does or does not belong in the Canon.  The Church discovered the Canon.  God decided the canon and gave it to the Church.   The Canon is not the servant of the Church.   People could read, but the RCC translated the Bible into a language the average person could not read and brainwashed them into letting the priest "interpret" the Bible for them.  The priests took full advantage of that, and began telling people that the Bible said things that it didn't say.

Quote

Okay, lets talk abot Jesus. He (Jesus) did not write any books of the Bible. Jesus chose NOT to write but rather to build his Church, and 30-60 years later He inspired the members of his Church write down the Gospels. Several hundred years after that, He inspired members of his Church to decide what books belong in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is the only authority. However, the Bible does say that Jesus founded his Church and gave it all authority. (Mat 16:18)

The point is that the Bible appeals to itself along and to no other teaching or tradition for our spiritual understanding.  Those 66 books of the Christian Bible are the only rule of faith for those who truly follow Jesus.

Jesus didn't give the Church "all authority."  That is just another RCC myth.

Quote

 

The Jews went to great pains to ensure that their worship would conform to the instructions which God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. God's call to his people was a call to holiness: "be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44; 19:2). In their zeal for holiness many elders developed elaborate traditions which became a burden for the people to carry out in their everyday lives. The Scribes and Pharisees were upset with Jesus because he allowed his disciples to break with their ritual traditions by eating with unclean hands. They sent a delegation all the way from Jerusalem to Galilee to bring their accusation in a face-to-face confrontation with Jesus.

Jesus dealt with their accusation by going to the heart of the matter -- by looking at God's intention and purpose for the commandments. Jesus gave an example of how their use of ritual tradition excused them from fulfilling the commandment to honor one's father and mother. If someone wanted to avoid the duty of financially providing for their parents in old age or sickness they could say that their money or goods were an offering "given over to God" and thus exempt from any claim of charity or duty to help others. They broke God's law to fulfull a law of their own making. Jesus explained that they void God's command because they allowed their hearts and minds to be clouded by their own notions of religion.

Jesus accused them specifically of two things. First of hypocrisy. Like actors, who put on a show, they appear to obey God's word in their external practices while they inwardly harbor evil desires and intentions. Secondly, he accused them of abandoning God's word by substituting their own arguments and ingenious interpretations for what God requires. They listened to clever arguments rather than to God's word. Jesus refers them to the prophecy of Is. (29:31) where the prophet accuses the people of his day for honoring God with their lips while their hearts went astray because of disobedience to God's laws.

 

Actually the Pharisees and modern Orthodox Judaism have a lot in common with the RCC.  The Jewish religious leaders were not trying to conform tot the teachings of Moses.  Were that the case, Jesus would not have rebuked them.   The same is true today.  Orthodox Judaism is not the religion of the OT.   The Pharisees had no motivation to keep the law of Moses, not a by a long shot. The Sermon on the Mount is a major rebuke of them and their excesses and false teachings, as well as many of the rules they just made up and "loopholes" to help them justify their breaking of the law of Moses.

Jesus condemned them for not only hypocrisy, but for using their tradition in a manner that made it a higher authority than the Bible.  Even in modern Judaism today, the Oral teachings of the Rabbis carry more authority than the written Scriptures and can actually cancel out what is contained in the Scriptures.   There is even a rabbinical parable that teaches that even God Himself is bound to rabbinic ruling and does not have the authority to overrule the Rabbis.

Jesus was condemning the practice of placing tradition over Scripture.  Jesus only ever appealed to Scripture and nothing else.

Quote

I disagree. Here are some biblical passages that Catholics feel speak for the need to observe tradition as well as Scripture. It is important to note that Catholics believe that the traditions they have embraced are not contrary to the Bible, we use tradition to clarify positions that are outlined and intimated there.

None of those passages make an appeal to tradition as authoritative on equal par or above the Bible.  What they are saying is, "remember what I taught you."   That is not the same as claiming that extra-biblical teachings have the same authority as Scripture. 

It should also be pointed out that most often, Paul addressed a congregation based on the specific needs of that congregation, as they had issues and problems and questions and needed answers about how to live in their new found faith relative to the pagan cultures they came out of.  Lot's to navigate for them trying to figure out what was harmless and what was harmful to their spiritual growth.  To what extent did they need to be separate from the surrounding culture?

Take one of those verses, II Thess. 3:6.   Paul is telling them to separate from someone who is walking disorderly and not according to the "tradition" he received, speaking of a fellow congregant.  The word used for "tradition" refers to teaching and is not limited to "oral tradition" nor does it refer to something extra-biblical, per se.  It does include the book of I Thessalonians and the cyclical letters like Ephesians.  Since Paule' letters were passed around from church to church, it would include several of the other epistles as well.

It is not the case that tradition refers to extra-biblical teachings, when Paul uses that word to refer to his teachings. Paul never appeals to anything he said that is not recorded in Scripture as being equal or greater in authority than the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit inspired him to write.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...