Binding and loosing

[EricH]

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.

Again,

What in scripture describes for you the content and nature of these teachings. Since you claim to be obeying scripture, I would assume that you should be able to defend the content of these traditions from scripture. I am not defending anything here. You are the one making the contention that there are a set of traditions that need to be obeyed, and that you are on scriptural grounds for doing so. If that is the case, you should be able to show us from scripture, what the traditions are, and where they are. Otherwise you are not on scriptural grounds, you are using something else. Please clarify for us

[Floatingaxe]

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.

YOU tell US how you follow oral traditions when the originator has a stilled tongue.

[EricH]

Lets take another angle here. Your reasoning seems to be that since paul commanded the readers of 2 Thessalonians for example to obey the traditions he handed down, that this command is still binding, and that since the scriptures in no place define what those traditions are, it is up to us to figure it out.

So your logic seems to be if there is an imperative in one of Paul's letters, it is binding upon us today. In addition to his command that the readers of 2 Thessalonians 3:6 that they avoid those who live in a way that goes against the precepts received from Paul, He command them to Pray for him that his missionary journeys be successful. Using your logic that once the command is given it stands forever, why do we not still pray for Paul's missionary journies?

[Kansasdad]

Lets take another angle here. Your reasoning seems to be that since paul commanded the readers of 2 Thessalonians for example to obey the traditions he handed down, that this command is still binding, and that since the scriptures in no place define what those traditions are, it is up to us to figure it out.

No this has been your insertion. It is not at all what I have said. The Bible also tells us how the Oral teachings were to be passed on and How we know what to hold on to. I told you in an earlier post that my opinion does not matter here, lets look to scripture. Likewise your opinion is not relevant, we must look to scripture. The problem is we could never get past the first point. Namely that we needed to hold on to these teachings at all. If you don't agree that they need to be followed at all, then there is not much point in showing scripture that tells you how to do it. K.D.

So your logic seems to be if there is an imperative in one of Paul's letters, it is binding upon us today. In addition to his command that the readers of 2 Thessalonians 3:6 that they avoid those who live in a way that goes against the precepts received from Paul, He command them to Pray for him that his missionary journeys be successful. Using your logic that once the command is given it stands forever, why do we not still pray for Paul's missionary journeys?

Eric I can't believe you really believe your own logic. No, we do not have a command to pray for Paul's missionary journeys, but we do have an example to follow; Praying for our church leaders and their missionary journeys, exactly like Paul describes. So Yes, what Paul said then is just as important today. I know you don't really believe that scripture relevant for their times is not relevant for our times as well.

Second, Paul did not commanded them in the name of Jesus Christ to pray for him and his journeys. There is a far cry difference between asking for prayers and commanding in the name of Jesus Christ.

[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.

YOU tell US how you follow oral traditions when the originator has a stilled tongue.

I will do better than that. Because it is not me that gave this command. It is a command from God. Do you think God would give you a command and then make it impossible to follow? Scripture answers this question.

I am dealing with state surveyors right now and a host of work issues. I will provide answers through scripture in a post soon.

[EricH]

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.

YOU tell US how you follow oral traditions when the originator has a stilled tongue.

I will do better than that. Because it is not me that gave this command. It is a command from God. Do you think God would give you a command and then make it impossible to follow? Scripture answers this question.

I am dealing with state surveyors right now and a host of work issues. I will provide answers through scripture in a post soon.

That is what we are waiting for. Your scriptures should delineate the content of the traditions, and justify your contention that they are applicable for today. In other words, from the scriptures you provide, we should be able to see the content of the traditions, and why they are still applicable

[EricH]

Lets take another angle here. Your reasoning seems to be that since paul commanded the readers of 2 Thessalonians for example to obey the traditions he handed down, that this command is still binding, and that since the scriptures in no place define what those traditions are, it is up to us to figure it out.

No this has been your insertion. It is not at all what I have said. The Bible also tells us how the Oral teachings were to be passed on and How we know what to hold on to. I told you in an earlier post that my opinion does not matter here, lets look to scripture. Likewise your opinion is not relevant, we must look to scripture. The problem is we could never get past the first point. Namely that we needed to hold on to these teachings at all. If you don't agree that they need to be followed at all, then there is not much point in showing scripture that tells you how to do it. K.D.

So your logic seems to be if there is an imperative in one of Paul's letters, it is binding upon us today. In addition to his command that the readers of 2 Thessalonians 3:6 that they avoid those who live in a way that goes against the precepts received from Paul, He command them to Pray for him that his missionary journeys be successful. Using your logic that once the command is given it stands forever, why do we not still pray for Paul's missionary journeys?

Eric I can't believe you really believe your own logic. No, we do not have a commscripture and to pray for Paul's missionary journeys, but we do have an example to follow; Praying for our church leaders and their missionary journeys, exactly like Paul describes. So Yes, what Paul said then is just as important today. I know you don't really believe that scripture relevant for their times is not relevant for our times as well.

Second, Paul did not commanded them in the name of Jesus Christ to pray for him and his journeys. There is a far cry difference between asking for prayers and commanding in the name of Jesus Christ.

I was simply reflecting your logic back at you. If you find it troubling, maybe that is where you should look. Your point was that if it is written as a command in scripture we need to obey it. That was your logic, not mine. Paul did command them to pray, The tense is the imperative in the greek. That is not the tense of request, but one of command. Are you saying that no commands in scripture are binding, unless the phrase "in the name of Jesus" appears with them? I am not disagreeing with you that scripture is applicable today. But you have developed some system of determining which commands are eternal, and which can be "contextualized" because of circumstances. I am trying to understand how you are making that differentiation, and where your ultimate authority lies

[Kansasdad]

Lets take another angle here. Your reasoning seems to be that since paul commanded the readers of 2 Thessalonians for example to obey the traditions he handed down, that this command is still binding, and that since the scriptures in no place define what those traditions are, it is up to us to figure it out.

No this has been your insertion. It is not at all what I have said. The Bible also tells us how the Oral teachings were to be passed on and How we know what to hold on to. I told you in an earlier post that my opinion does not matter here, lets look to scripture. Likewise your opinion is not relevant, we must look to scripture. The problem is we could never get past the first point. Namely that we needed to hold on to these teachings at all. If you don't agree that they need to be followed at all, then there is not much point in showing scripture that tells you how to do it. K.D.

So your logic seems to be if there is an imperative in one of Paul's letters, it is binding upon us today. In addition to his command that the readers of 2 Thessalonians 3:6 that they avoid those who live in a way that goes against the precepts received from Paul, He command them to Pray for him that his missionary journeys be successful. Using your logic that once the command is given it stands forever, why do we not still pray for Paul's missionary journeys?

Eric I can't believe you really believe your own logic. No, we do not have a commscripture and to pray for Paul's missionary journeys, but we do have an example to follow; Praying for our church leaders and their missionary journeys, exactly like Paul describes. So Yes, what Paul said then is just as important today. I know you don't really believe that scripture relevant for their times is not relevant for our times as well.

Second, Paul did not commanded them in the name of Jesus Christ to pray for him and his journeys. There is a far cry difference between asking for prayers and commanding in the name of Jesus Christ.

I was simply reflecting your logic back at you. If you find it troubling, maybe that is where you should look. Your point was that if it is written as a command in scripture we need to obey it. That was your logic, not mine. Paul did command them to pray, The tense is the imperative in the greek. That is not the tense of request, but one of command. Are you saying that no commands in scripture are binding, unless the phrase "in the name of Jesus" appears with them? I am not disagreeing with you that scripture is applicable today. But you have developed some system of determining which commands are eternal, and which can be "contextualized" because of circumstances. I am trying to understand how you are making that differentiation, and where your ultimate authority lies

Which of course is all irrelevant to the point I made. Pauls imperative request for prayer is just as relative today as it was in his time. So actually this only supports what I have been saying. The commands Paul gives are still very relevent to us today. All of them. We need to pray for our missionaries today just as Paul says, and we need to hold on to his teachings by word of mouth. Both are just as relevant today as they were when Paul said them. Thank you for providing further proof that Pauls commands for us are still valid and need to be followed.

[Kansasdad]

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles

[Floatingaxe]

I am sorry, kansasdad, but you are straining at gnats here. We have the Word of God, and the only oral tradition is the verbal proclamation that we are commanded to make, preaching the gospel to the world.

I am afraid that your convoluted posts have really done nothing but attempted to further the notion that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, and we know that isn't true. The one true Church is the followers, disciples of Jesus Christ.