Binding and loosing

[Iryssa]

SO...it was supposed to say this (corrections in bold)?

"So, how is it possible that someone rejects what a disciple of the Apostles tells us he was taught, when that teaching does not contradict the written word of the Apostles?"

[Kansasdad]

Also as to why this is relevant to the original poster, There has been different individual interpretation of the scriptures originally in question. I appealed to scripture and teachings of the Apostles to provide understanding of the scripture in question. By doing this I have been challenged for going outside of the Bible. The truth is though, that I did not go outside of the Bible, but in fact I did exactly what the Bible tells us we must do. Thus the question at hand is very relative to the discussion. When there is a question about the written what does the Bible tell us we MUST do. It tells us we must hold on to what we were taught orally by the Apostles. All I am saying is we all must follow this command. So how is it possible if someone reject what a disciple of the Apostle tell us he was taught, and that teaching does not contradict the written word of the Apostles?

God Bless,

K.D.

The problem is that you are forced to go outside the Bible. The texts in question do not address what were those things they "orally passed on". You make some assumptions:

1. That the "oral traditions Paul alluded to in specific bools were not eventually recorded in other scriptures.

2.That tradition you now hold are equivalent to the ones paul referred to.

In both cases your argument is from silence.

Actually it is your argument that is from silence. There is no indication in the slightest fashion to indicate that these teaching would later become written. Further, as we all agree, these are inspired words from God. Why would God tell us to hold on to the oral teachings knowing that they would eventually become written. It is your assumption that makes no sense. The only assumption I have made is that what Paul tells us is true and it didn't change. If you can show me where this was changed then you would have a reason to make that assumption. Otherwise we must maintain that what Paul said is still relevant. You have provided absolutely no evidence to contradict what Paul states.

Concerning point two: Then by all means we should put them to the test. Are the oral teachings (traditions) being quoted from the Apostles? That is a very legitimate question. One we are commanded to ask and follow.

On this do we agree?

God Bless,

K.D.

[Kansasdad]

SO...it was supposed to say this (corrections in bold)?

"So, how is it possible that someone rejects what a disciple of the Apostles tells us he was taught, when that teaching does not contradict the written word of the Apostles?"

Thanks, much better

[EricH]

[

Actually it is your argument that is from silence. There is no indication in the slightest fashion to indicate that these teaching would later become written. Further, as we all agree, these are inspired words from God. Why would God tell us to hold on to the oral teachings knowing that they would eventually become written. It is your assumption that makes no sense. The only assumption I have made is that what Paul tells us is true and it didn't change. If you can show me where this was changed then you would have a reason to make that assumption. Otherwise we must maintain that what Paul said is still relevant. You have provided absolutely no evidence to contradict what Paul states.

Concerning point two: Then by all means we should put them to the test. Are the oral teachings (traditions) being quoted from the Apostles? That is a very legitimate question. One we are commanded to ask and follow.

On this do we agree?

God Bless,

K.D.

Actually I am not arguing anthing. All I have stated is that you have not addressed all possible anwers as to what the traditions are. You have made a logical jump to assume that the traditions in question are no place recorded in scripture. On what basis have you made this assumption? The text itself in no place addresses what the traditions are, or what there exact nature was. Where did you get this information as to their nature and content?

[Iryssa]

SO...it was supposed to say this (corrections in bold)?

"So, how is it possible that someone rejects what a disciple of the Apostles tells us he was taught, when that teaching does not contradict the written word of the Apostles?"

Thanks, much better

Great. That's all I needed to know.

[Kansasdad]

Huh? Oh, whatever...I just want to see the "sentence" (if it could be called that) re-written so that it makes sense...you know, so that I can understand what the heck it's trying to say. There's something up with the verb tenses and such. I can't make it out.

They did contradict some peoples personal interpretation of the scriptures.

God Bless,

K.D.

I guess that accusation can fly 2 ways

I am not sure I follow you here. We had different interpretations of the same verse. I was actually able to find some writings from the early church fathers that addressed this issue. Their writing did not support every interpretation that was being presented. What they said did not contradict the verses being questioned but clarified what they had been taught. We know that these people were taught by the Apostles. How is that an accusation and how is it flying two ways?

God Bless,

K.D.

[Kansasdad]

[

Actually it is your argument that is from silence. There is no indication in the slightest fashion to indicate that these teaching would later become written. Further, as we all agree, these are inspired words from God. Why would God tell us to hold on to the oral teachings knowing that they would eventually become written. It is your assumption that makes no sense. The only assumption I have made is that what Paul tells us is true and it didn't change. If you can show me where this was changed then you would have a reason to make that assumption. Otherwise we must maintain that what Paul said is still relevant. You have provided absolutely no evidence to contradict what Paul states.

Concerning point two: Then by all means we should put them to the test. Are the oral teachings (traditions) being quoted from the Apostles? That is a very legitimate question. One we are commanded to ask and follow.

On this do we agree?

God Bless,

K.D.

Actually I am not arguing anthing. All I have stated is that you have not addressed all possible anwers as to what the traditions are. You have made a logical jump to assume that the traditions in question are no place recorded in scripture. On what basis have you made this assumption? The text itself in no place addresses what the traditions are, or what there exact nature was. Where did you get this information as to their nature and content?

Paul tells us we must hold on to both. If all we needed was the written Paul would have told us this. But he didn't. He makes it very clear to hold on to both. Eric how are you going to hold on to the oral teaching (traditions) of the Apostles. If you state that all the oral teaching were written down then that is the point of making a jump by assumption. The Bible never indicates this to be true. I am going by what the Bible says and nothing further. It says to hold on to Both. Untill it can be shown that God tell us to stop doing this, we are commanded to continue. I am going to continue Gods command, are you?

K.D.

[EricH]

[

Actually it is your argument that is from silence. There is no indication in the slightest fashion to indicate that these teaching would later become written. Further, as we all agree, these are inspired words from God. Why would God tell us to hold on to the oral teachings knowing that they would eventually become written. It is your assumption that makes no sense. The only assumption I have made is that what Paul tells us is true and it didn't change. If you can show me where this was changed then you would have a reason to make that assumption. Otherwise we must maintain that what Paul said is still relevant. You have provided absolutely no evidence to contradict what Paul states.

Concerning point two: Then by all means we should put them to the test. Are the oral teachings (traditions) being quoted from the Apostles? That is a very legitimate question. One we are commanded to ask and follow.

On this do we agree?

God Bless,

K.D.

Actually I am not arguing anthing. All I have stated is that you have not addressed all possible anwers as to what the traditions are. You have made a logical jump to assume that the traditions in question are no place recorded in scripture. On what basis have you made this assumption? The text itself in no place addresses what the traditions are, or what there exact nature was. Where did you get this information as to their nature and content?

Paul tells us we must hold on to both. If all we needed was the written Paul would have told us this. But he didn't. He makes it very clear to hold on to both. Eric how are you going to hold on to the oral teaching (traditions) of the Apostles. If you state that all the oral teaching were written down then that is the point of making a jump by assumption. The Bible never indicates this to be true. I am going by what the Bible says and nothing further. It says to hold on to Both. Untill it can be shown that God tell us to stop doing this, we are commanded to continue. I am going to continue Gods command, are you?

K.D.

Again, I will repeat the question. On what basis are you making the assumption that the traditions are not contained in scripture? On what basis have you decided what their nature and content is?

[Kansasdad]

[

Actually it is your argument that is from silence. There is no indication in the slightest fashion to indicate that these teaching would later become written. Further, as we all agree, these are inspired words from God. Why would God tell us to hold on to the oral teachings knowing that they would eventually become written. It is your assumption that makes no sense. The only assumption I have made is that what Paul tells us is true and it didn't change. If you can show me where this was changed then you would have a reason to make that assumption. Otherwise we must maintain that what Paul said is still relevant. You have provided absolutely no evidence to contradict what Paul states.

Concerning point two: Then by all means we should put them to the test. Are the oral teachings (traditions) being quoted from the Apostles? That is a very legitimate question. One we are commanded to ask and follow.

On this do we agree?

God Bless,

K.D.

Actually I am not arguing anthing. All I have stated is that you have not addressed all possible anwers as to what the traditions are. You have made a logical jump to assume that the traditions in question are no place recorded in scripture. On what basis have you made this assumption? The text itself in no place addresses what the traditions are, or what there exact nature was. Where did you get this information as to their nature and content?

Paul tells us we must hold on to both. If all we needed was the written Paul would have told us this. But he didn't. He makes it very clear to hold on to both. Eric how are you going to hold on to the oral teaching (traditions) of the Apostles. If you state that all the oral teaching were written down then that is the point of making a jump by assumption. The Bible never indicates this to be true. I am going by what the Bible says and nothing further. It says to hold on to Both. Untill it can be shown that God tell us to stop doing this, we are commanded to continue. I am going to continue Gods command, are you?

K.D.

Again, I will repeat the question. On what basis are you making the assumption that the traditions are not contained in scripture? On what basis have you decided what their nature and content is?

By the very definition scripture gives us to what traditions are. Traditions are by definition teachings that are not written down. This is what Paul tells us. To the second half of your question; That is a very good question that we should be asking. How do we determine what these teachings (traditions) are. Excellent question. Now if I gave you my opinion then that would just be my opinion. So lets look to see how scripture tells us to follow this very command?

Sorry I am short on time now. But I will find the passages that tell us how the Apostles continue their traditions, and thus how we are to determine if they are in fact traditions from the Apostles or from some one else.

God Bless,

K.D.

[EricH]

[

Actually it is your argument that is from silence. There is no indication in the slightest fashion to indicate that these teaching would later become written. Further, as we all agree, these are inspired words from God. Why would God tell us to hold on to the oral teachings knowing that they would eventually become written. It is your assumption that makes no sense. The only assumption I have made is that what Paul tells us is true and it didn't change. If you can show me where this was changed then you would have a reason to make that assumption. Otherwise we must maintain that what Paul said is still relevant. You have provided absolutely no evidence to contradict what Paul states.

Concerning point two: Then by all means we should put them to the test. Are the oral teachings (traditions) being quoted from the Apostles? That is a very legitimate question. One we are commanded to ask and follow.

On this do we agree?

God Bless,

K.D.

Actually I am not arguing anthing. All I have stated is that you have not addressed all possible anwers as to what the traditions are. You have made a logical jump to assume that the traditions in question are no place recorded in scripture. On what basis have you made this assumption? The text itself in no place addresses what the traditions are, or what there exact nature was. Where did you get this information as to their nature and content?

Paul tells us we must hold on to both. If all we needed was the written Paul would have told us this. But he didn't. He makes it very clear to hold on to both. Eric how are you going to hold on to the oral teaching (traditions) of the Apostles. If you state that all the oral teaching were written down then that is the point of making a jump by assumption. The Bible never indicates this to be true. I am going by what the Bible says and nothing further. It says to hold on to Both. Untill it can be shown that God tell us to stop doing this, we are commanded to continue. I am going to continue Gods command, are you?

K.D.

Again, I will repeat the question. On what basis are you making the assumption that the traditions are not contained in scripture? On what basis have you decided what their nature and content is?

By the very definition scripture gives us to what traditions are. Traditions are by definition teachings that are not written down. This is what Paul tells us. To the second half of your question; That is a very good question that we should be asking. How do we determine what these teachings (traditions) are. Excellent question. Now if I gave you my opinion then that would just be my opinion. So lets look to see how scripture tells us to follow this very command?

Sorry I am short on time now. But I will find the passages that tell us how the Apostles continue their traditions, and thus how we are to determine if they are in fact traditions from the Apostles or from some one else.

God Bless,

K.D.

Actually oral traditions are traditions that are not written down. The Jews had traditions both oral and written. Many of the scriptures we have now had as there sources written and oral traditions (i.e. the some of the gospels). Clearly they did not remain traditions. They were encoded into the scriptures. The gospels were originally traditions that were gathered together and written down. Just because Paul calls them traditions does not necessarily demand that they remained so. You still have not provided a compelling reason for your assertion,other than that is your understanding of what the word "tradition" implies