Binding and loosing

[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. Until 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

Except the fact that paul clarifies this by saying exactly what he means. He says both what was taught by word of mouth and written. Paul himself makes the distinction not me. The compelling reason is, that is what Paul said. You must hold on to both.

Ok lets cut past the what if's here. For your assertion to be true then, what part of the new testament did Paul teach by word of mouth that later was written down. Romans ? , no Paul wrote that, Corinthians ? no Paul wrote that to. Philippians ? nope again Paul wrote that, How about Thessalonians Ephesians Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, or Philemon thats right, written by paul. So we easily know these can not be the oral traditions taught by Paul through word of mouth. Ok the Gospels then. Nope that doesn't hardly make sense. Revelations ? Now that would be quite a stretch. Tell me Eric what part of the new testament could possibly be oral teaching given by paul that he didn't write but were written down at a later date.

That assertion is only an attempt to avoid dealing with what paul tell you must be done. Hold on to what he taught either by writing or word of mouth. Paul distingusishes the two, not me.

You are correct that traditions of the old testiment were used in writting the Gospels, but Paul makes a clear distinction. He states very clearly that he is commanding them to hold on to what he has taught both orally and in writting. You have provided nothing in scripture that gives the slightest suggestion that this command stopped. There is absolutely nothing in scripture that indicates that all of his oral teachings were written down. It simply is not there, and Paul knew this. That is why he commands us to hold on to all of what he taught not just part. Eric if what I am saying is not true then show me in scripture where it says this? Show me where scripture tells us that the oral teaching of Paul, he commands us to hold on to, were written down?

K.D.

[Floatingaxe]

I'm sorry, but.....this is silly.

[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

Great. That's all I needed to know.

So do you have any thoughts on this question?

[Kansasdad]

I'm sorry, but.....this is silly.

Paul gives you a command in the name of Jesus Christ and you think it is silly?

[Floatingaxe]

I'm sorry, but.....this is silly.

Paul gives you a command in the name of Jesus Christ and you think it is silly?

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Plainly Paul was speaking in his letters to the churches, and of course, many of his instructions had been oral up until that time. I don't think we have his oral instructions now, but rather his written. That is God's way.

[Kansasdad]

I'm sorry, but.....this is silly.

Paul gives you a command in the name of Jesus Christ and you think it is silly?

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Plainly Paul was speaking in his letters to the churches, and of course, many of his instructions had been oral up until that time. I don't think we have his oral instructions now, but rather his written. That is God's way.

I understand that this is your opinion. But you are now saying "that it is Gods way" Where in scripture do you find this conclusion. Scripture does not say this. 30,000 different versions of the truth is not a molehill. It is mass confussion because of this very issue. If Pauls instructions were only oral up to a certain time then became written, why would paul refer to both. You keep ignoring this fact. This is not a small issue to Paul. He commands it in the name of Jesus Christ. Does that sound like a small issue, or something Paul thought was fundementally important.

It is quite simple, on this very thread we have the exact issue Paul was addressing. We have written scripture. We have individuals interpreting the same written words differently. Paul recognised this would happen. In fact it was happening during his time. This is not new. So Paul tells us how we are to handle this very situation. I am trying to show you how the Bible tells us to handle this situation. I have given you the verses where the Bible show us how to handle it. If you disagree then prove it with scripture. You are not just disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Paul.

[Floatingaxe]

I'm sorry, but.....this is silly.

Paul gives you a command in the name of Jesus Christ and you think it is silly?

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Plainly Paul was speaking in his letters to the churches, and of course, many of his instructions had been oral up until that time. I don't think we have his oral instructions now, but rather his written. That is God's way.

I understand that this is your opinion. But you are now saying "that it is Gods way" Where in scripture do you find this conclusion. Scripture does not say this. 30,000 different versions of the truth is not a molehill. It is mass confussion because of this very issue. If Pauls instructions were only oral up to a certain time then became written, why would paul refer to both. You keep ignoring this fact. This is not a small issue to Paul. He commands it in the name of Jesus Christ. Does that sound like a small issue, or something Paul thought was fundementally important.

It is quite simple, on this very thread we have the exact issue Paul was addressing. We have written scripture. We have individuals interpreting the same written words differently. Paul recognised this would happen. In fact it was happening during his time. This is not new. So Paul tells us how we are to handle this very situation. I am trying to show you how the Bible tells us to handle this situation. I have given you the verses where the Bible show us how to handle it. If you disagree then prove it with scripture. You are not just disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Paul.

Well, up until the time that he was unable to talk, they were so able to fulfill his command to them. Now, of course, you realize Paul is dead! But, guess what? Jesus lives and His words are speaking through the Holy Spirit! Listen to them!

[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. Until 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

Except the fact that paul clarifies this by saying exactly what he means. He says both what was taught by word of mouth and written. Paul himself makes the distinction not me. The compelling reason is, that is what Paul said. You must hold on to both.

Ok lets cut past the what if's here. For your assertion to be true then, what part of the new testament did Paul teach by word of mouth that later was written down. Romans ? , no Paul wrote that, Corinthians ? no Paul wrote that to. Philippians ? nope again Paul wrote that, How about Thessalonians Ephesians Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, or Philemon thats right, written by paul. So we easily know these can not be the oral traditions taught by Paul through word of mouth. Ok the Gospels then. Nope that doesn't hardly make sense. Revelations ? Now that would be quite a stretch. Tell me Eric what part of the new testament could possibly be oral teaching given by paul that he didn't write but were written down at a later date.

That assertion is only an attempt to avoid dealing with what paul tell you must be done. Hold on to what he taught either by writing or word of mouth. Paul distingusishes the two, not me.

You are correct that traditions of the old testiment were used in writting the Gospels, but Paul makes a clear distinction. He states very clearly that he is commanding them to hold on to what he has taught both orally and in writting. You have provided nothing in scripture that gives the slightest suggestion that this command stopped. There is absolutely nothing in scripture that indicates that all of his oral teachings were written down. It simply is not there, and Paul knew this. That is why he commands us to hold on to all of what he taught not just part. Eric if what I am saying is not true then show me in scripture where it says this? Show me where scripture tells us that the oral teaching of Paul, he commands us to hold on to, were written down?

K.D.

Again, I will repeat the question It should be very simple to answer. On what basis have you decided what the exact nature of the traditions are. Where in scripture does it define what these traditions contained. If you cannot provide a scripture that defines them, then you are argueing from silence, or must bring in a source other than scripture to defend them If that is the case (that you need a source other than the bible to tell us what they are) why not just say so?

[Floatingaxe]

I imagine he is getting to the papacy and the Catholic priesthood...

[Kansasdad]

I imagine he is getting to the papacy and the Catholic priesthood...

No I very clearly stated that was not the direction I was going. I am only giving you what the Bible says. I have quoted every position I said from scripture. Not one single response in return gave scripture that showed anything different. I have given you scripture that tells you the truth. If you choose to follow it or not is your choice. Scripture tells you to hold on to both the written words and the oral teaching of the Apostles. You can either follow this or you can try to justify something different. I can only give you the truth as stated by scripture. So my question still remains. How are you going to hold on to the oral teachings of the Apostles. And if you state that all of the oral teaching were written down then show me in scripture where it says this? Otherwise this command still stands.