DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 160--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
By: Stan Date: December 1, 2014, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Danger Mouse link=topic=14.msg158#msg158
date=1417470855]
That article says pretty much what I said.
If we continue to trace the concept of Messiah through the Old
Testament without dependence
on the term mashiach. . . .
[/quote]
Not even close, but that's what happens when you cherry pick
ANYTHING out of context.
#Post#: 161--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
By: Kerry Date: December 1, 2014, 4:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Mighty Mouse link=topic=14.msg160#msg160
date=1417471575]
Not even close, but that's what happens when you cherry pick
ANYTHING out of context.
[/quote]Are you serious, or do you just enjoy debating things?
I'm beginning to wonder if you mean the things you write.
Perhaps you're having a fine jest with us by taking this line.
That person wrote that. I didn't, but I agree. It's quite
easy to see really that the Jewish concept of King Messiah does
not rest on explicit uses of the word "messiah" in the Old
Testament. It should be easy anyway since the word isn't used
that way in the written books of the Old Testament. After all,
Solomon did write:
Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the
honour of kings is to search out a matter.
Many things are written in the Bible, but the concept of King
Messiah is not explicitly taught using the word "messiah."
#Post#: 162--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
By: Stan Date: December 1, 2014, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course I'm serious and what you excerpted was from half way
through his article, so obviously out of context.
If you don't want to acknowledge the Messiah of the OT as being
Jesus that's up to you, but it is common thought.
#Post#: 163--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
By: Kerry Date: December 1, 2014, 5:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Mighty Mouse link=topic=14.msg162#msg162
date=1417474808]
Of course I'm serious and what you excerpted was from half way
through his article, so obviously out of context.[/quote]I am
not allowed to quote something unless I quote it from the
beginning? You aren't making sense.
[quote]If you don't want to acknowledge the Messiah of the OT as
being Jesus that's up to you, but it is common thought.[/quote]I
never said Jesus was not the promised Messiah. I said you
can't produce the concept of King Messiah from the Scriptures by
relying on the word "messiah". I think if you could have, you
would have done so by now.
#Post#: 164--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
By: Ivor1 Date: December 1, 2014, 7:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I cannot debate on language because I don't have the knowledge
but may I add that the people around the time of Christ were
searching for him because of things they had read, there were
false Messiahs which Gamaliel (Pauls teacher) spoke of and the
astrologers were searching for him at his birth and as someone
said Herod was aware.
If we are gifted with a message and we act upon it, does it
really matter if the message is in Queens English or Pidgin
English?
If people talked write England like I used to could when I where
a children.. we would still understand the message and obviously
many did understand the Messiah was due because they searched
for him or claimed to be him
PS. Gamaliel was not wise (to Judaism) by being liberal as many
view today and then use his words as a weak excuse to avoid
anyone challenging their actions.
Gamaliel was being kind to Christians and in being so, he too
did not get the measure of the threat to his own religion from
the Christian faith because it did not come to nothing as those
before had done, it flourished and took over the world and in
its distorted stages even tried to destroy Judaism.
#Post#: 170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
By: A nonny mouse Date: December 2, 2014, 12:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
see that Stan (Mighty Mouse) has closed his account.
#Post#: 212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
By: Ezra Date: December 4, 2014, 9:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
While the "traditions of men" generally violate the Word of God,
we find in Scripture another term - "the [apostolic] traditions
which ye have been taught" (2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). What exactly
was Paul referring, since he abhorred the traditions of the
elders and the traditions of men, just like the Lord.
To understand this we need to realize that the word "tradition"
is neutral. It is the Greek paradosis (Strong's 3862) which
means transmission, a precept, an ordinance, a tradition, or
that which has been handed down or entrusted. Christ personally
handed down to His apostles many teachings -- Divine truth --
and those became the "traditions" of the apostles (as mentioned
in 2 Thess) transmitted "by word or by epistle".
One can therefore say that all the epistles are "the traditions
of the apostles" and Peter specifically places all of Paul's
epistles on the same level as Scripture (2 Pet 3:15,16), as well
as his own (2 Pet 1:19-21). In 1 Cor 11:2 they are called
"ordinances" (paradosis) and are as binding on Christians as any
direct teaching of the Lord.
On the other hand, Christians must constantly ask themselves
whether they are following the traditions of men in their
churches, or the "traditions of Christ" as given by His
apostles. We need to have a Scriptural foundation for everything
we preach, teach and practice. Unfortunately, Scripture has
taken a back seat in too many churches.
#Post#: 215--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
By: Kerry Date: December 5, 2014, 5:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ezra link=topic=14.msg212#msg212 date=1417749251]
While the "traditions of men" generally violate the Word of God,
we find in Scripture another term - "the [apostolic] traditions
which ye have been taught" (2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). What exactly
was Paul referring, since he abhorred the traditions of the
elders and the traditions of men, just like the Lord.
To understand this we need to realize that the word "tradition"
is neutral. It is the Greek paradosis (Strong's 3862) which
means transmission, a precept, an ordinance, a tradition, or
that which has been handed down or entrusted. Christ personally
handed down to His apostles many teachings -- Divine truth --
and those became the "traditions" of the apostles (as mentioned
in 2 Thess) transmitted "by word or by epistle".
One can therefore say that all the epistles are "the traditions
of the apostles" and Peter specifically places all of Paul's
epistles on the same level as Scripture (2 Pet 3:15,16), as well
as his own (2 Pet 1:19-21). In 1 Cor 11:2 they are called
"ordinances" (paradosis) and are as binding on Christians as any
direct teaching of the Lord.[/quote]How can we know which books
attributed to Paul were written by Paul? When Peter says that,
how do we know which books he meant? As for the book of 2
Peter as well, how do we know Peter wrote that? Indeed more
generally, how do we know which of all the books are inspired?
[quote]On the other hand, Christians must constantly ask
themselves whether they are following the traditions of men in
their churches, or the "traditions of Christ" as given by His
apostles. We need to have a Scriptural foundation for everything
we preach, teach and practice. Unfortunately, Scripture has
taken a back seat in too many churches.[/quote]You just cited
the passage from 2 Thessalonians that has Paul telling people
not to go by Scriptures alone. How do you make this leap in
logic then to conclude we need to "have a Scriptural foundation
for everything we preach, teach, and practice." I'd say that
statement conflicts with 2 Thessalonians; and further I'd also
say you can't find anywhere in the Bible that says all those
things should depend on Scripture alone. You appear to fallen
into the sola scriptura tradition established only a few hundred
years ago by Protestants rebelling against Catholic authority.
#Post#: 242--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
By: Ezra Date: December 6, 2014, 2:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE] You appear to fallen into the sola scriptura tradition
established only a few hundred years ago by Protestants
rebelling against Catholic authority.[/QUOTE]
Actually that is a fallacy in itself. Sola Scriptura was not
invented by the Protestants. It is exactly what the Lord Jesus
Christ taught and what the apostles taught and practised. Please
note well, and meditate on this passage (2 Timothy 3:14-17):
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and
hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith
which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto
all good works.
Because Scripture is "God-breathed" (Gk theopneustos) it is
completely sufficient in and of itself for "life and godliness"
(2 Pet 1:3). That is why evangelical and fundamentalist
churches state that it is the final authority is all matters
pertaining to doctrine and practice. It is the Word of God.
Roman Catholic "authority" was fundamentally bogus, because it
contradicted Scripture. Even the Eastern Orthodox churches
rejected papal infallibility and authority.
#Post#: 244--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traditions
By: Kerry Date: December 6, 2014, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ezra link=topic=14.msg242#msg242 date=1417896612]
Actually that is a fallacy in itself. Sola Scriptura was not
invented by the Protestants. It is exactly what the Lord Jesus
Christ taught and what the apostles taught and practised. Please
note well, and meditate on this passage (2 Timothy 3:14-17):
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and
hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith
which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto
all good works.
[/quote]Two questions here. What books would Timothy have been
taught as a child? And is Paul talking about himself teaching
Timothy something?
[quote]Because Scripture is "God-breathed" (Gk theopneustos) it
is completely sufficient in and of itself for "life and
godliness" (2 Pet 1:3). That is why evangelical and
fundamentalist churches state that it is the final authority is
all matters pertaining to doctrine and practice. It is the Word
of God.[/quote]
How do you know 2 Peter should be considered "holy scripture"?
People have debated that.
I would also ask you to start quoting your passages unless
completely certain of them. One reason I often cite passages
is to make sure I have them straight myself; and another is so
others who may not recognize the reference won't need to look
them up. That passage does not say what you say it says.
1 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus
Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us
through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge
of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things
that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of
him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious
promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine
nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world
through lust.
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith
virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and
to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness
charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that
ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar
off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
If you can read that passage and reduce all the things Peter
mentions down to "reading the Bible," then I tell you you are
blind and cannot see. You might as well not have a Bible if you
alter it to mean what you what it to mean.
I would agree that all the Holy Scriptures are God-breathed; but
that means that the prophets were able to hear the Voice of God.
It does not mean that spiritually blind and deaf people can
pick up written copies of what the prophet received and grasp
what they read. Back to 2 Peter 1:
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when
there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were
with him in the holy mount.
What Peter heard was God-breathed. What people wrote down with
ink was not. You should not mistake your reading the account
with Peter's experience of being there and hearing. You are
not hearing the Heavenly Voice from the cloud when reading
that.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do
well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark
place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your
hearts:
Not everyone can read the Holy Scriptures and understand them.
If their hearts cannot receive the Light, they read the written
words in vain.
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of
any private interpretation.[b]
But you say it is something you can do privately.
[b]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.
Divinely inspired writings started off as being spoken. You
try to reduce the Voice of God to mere ink on paper.
[quote]Roman Catholic "authority" was fundamentally bogus,
because it contradicted Scripture. Even the Eastern Orthodox
churches rejected papal infallibility and authority.[/quote]You
have a knack of letting your mind wander off undisciplined. I
am not here to defend all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. I
don't see how the concept of papal infallibility fits into this
discussion unless your point is to show how the Catholic Church
itself invented "new traditions."
The Catholic Church is right however when it asserts along with
Peter that " no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation." They are right; and on this point, their
Tradition agrees completely with Scripture. Your opinion comes
from men and contradicts the Bible.
Men can twist the Bible horribly to their own peril. Peter
warned people about that too and warned us about the perils of
reading some of the things Paul wrote.
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of
these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do
also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Who are the "unlearned" and the "unstable" Peter talks about
here? How can they wrest the writings to their own destruction?
There Peter seems to be echoing what Isaiah wrote:
Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon
precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;
here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall
backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
I still cannot imagine how you could cite 1 Peter 1:3 as saying
that Scripture is "sufficient in and of itself for 'life and
godliness.'" It's fantastic. Peter doesn't mention the
Scriptures in the first half of the chapter but does mention
various things -- but you mentally delete all those things and
substitute "scripture." It makes me scratch my head.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page