Skip to comments.Unraveling Jesus' mystery years in Egypt
Posted on 07/31/2005 5:38:30 AM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
"...filled with things that are placed on people that the Lord never mandated through scripture..."
OK. Now we're back on the same page by recognizing that there is "the Tradition".
The exact date of the Birth of Jesus Christ is very important to Christianity. We know this because St. Luke the Evangelist fills his Gospel with details that have but one purpose, to establish it for all time. So don't say this is not important or not mandated.
So why didn't he just give a date? Something like 753AUC would have been more convenient than hints.
"Commandments of men"http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
Consider Matthew 15:69, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made Gods laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men." Look closely at what Jesus said.
He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made Gods word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to Gods commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:23).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
"So why didn't he just give a date? Something like 753AUC would have been more convenient than hints."
When St. Luke wrote his gospel, the terms B.C. (Before Christ), A.D.(in the year of our Lord), C.E. (common era), B.C.E. (before the common era) did not exist. To establish a date, one has to first establish a point of reference. That's what we do today when we say B.C. or A.D., we go by a previously established point of reference. Muslims go by the date of Mohammed's Flight from Mecca to Medina (A.D. 622 by the way). Jews by the year of the Creation (And don't ask because I'm not Jewish). St. Luke did not go by the year of the Creation, interestingly. Instead he used other points of reference, other events he was confident would last through the ages as solid points of reference. The first chapters of his gospel are filled with these, and they obviously have but one purpose, to establish exactly when important events happened, the most important of all being the Incarnation of the Son of God.
Have you ever heard of Denys the Little? Living in the 6th century, Denys established the year of our Lord based upon the information provided by St. Luke and other historical data. For more on Denys the Little go to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05010b.htm
I understand that, but you cannot deny that the church in general is rife with tradition that is contrary to scripture. Since the passage in 2nd Thessalonians refers to traditions received from the apostles themselves...
Where did Paul or any of the disciples institutue a Christian priesthood?
Where did baptising of infants come from?
When did communion go from being a shared meal to a wafer and a sip of wine?
When did membershiop in a particular church body or denomination become necessary for participating in communion?
Which of the apostles commanded huge buildings to be erected for worship? Or any at all?
Which apostle demanded that church pastors or leaders go through seminary or bible college?
Where did the disciples command that they be called "Father"?
Which of the disciples created a distinction between the 'professional ministry class' and the laity?
I could go on but you get the drift. I tend to agree with Luther in his proclamation of "Sola Scriptura!" If it ain't in the bible, it's all suspect and up to question.
Again, merely my opinion, nothing more.
"...the church in general is rife with tradition that is contrary to scripture"
We are wandering off the subect - Jesus in Egypt - but I deny that remark with ease. Here's why.
The Church, is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. So it follows that if "the church in general is rife with tradition that is contrary to scripture" something is very wrong. The Church is the Body of Christ. That which we say of the Church, therefore, applies to our Lord's Body. And that which we say of the Body applies to the Church. Each dictates the other. Morever, our Lord promised that the gates of hell(death) would not prevail against His Church. So if "the church in general is rife with tradition that is contrary to scripture", hell has prevailed and if hell has prevailed, Jesus lied.
My Jesus never lied.
I agree to an extent; however I think your understanding of the scripture concerning the "gates of hell" is flawed. It has nothing to do with the church being corrupted; we know from Jesus' own words in Revelation that it indeed is and will be. It will be lukewarm, and full of false teachers and false doctrines. The "gates of hell" reference is an illustration of the offensive stance the church ought to be taking to advance the kingdom, not a defensive one. It is we who are to kick the gates of hell down, not the other way around.
But yes, it is off topic. Sorry!
"The "gates of hell" reference is an illustration of the offensive stance the church ought to be taking to advance the kingdom, not a defensive one"
Oh? Says who?
But let us say your interpretation has merit(something I do not admit by the way), that still leaves us with a Body of Christ that's corrupted through and through (according to you), top to bottom and stem to stern.
I have no use for a corrupted Body of Christ. A corrupted Body is worthless and it's all yours.
"Oh? Says who?"
Says anyone with the knowledge of the times of Christ, that the gates of a city were for defense against invaders. People at that time would have understood Jesus to mean that the gates of Hell ( notice the gates belong to hell, not the church) would not prevail against the church. Since gates are stationary objects and cannot attack anyone, it only stands to reason that it must be the church attacking them. Jesus used several offensive illustrations, such as binding the strong man to plunder his house, destroying the works of the enemy, etc etc.
"that still leaves us with a Body of Christ that's corrupted through and through (according to you), top to bottom and stem to stern."
Please, show me where I said that.
What I did say was that there is corruption in the church, and it does many things which are contrary to scripture, some of them against the letter of scripture, and some against the spirit of it. Jesus himself said that there would be false teachers and false prophets , as did Peter
(2 Peter 2: 1 - 22). Many would fall away or be taken captive by deciet. Why is this so hard to accept? If Jesus knew the church would not escape corruption (and judgment--) why do you think he was wrong?
And for what it's worth, I have no desire to have a pissing match here. I respect other beliefs, and have gone out of my way to ackowledge that what I say is my own opinion based on my own study, and that I don't know everything. I like to discuss this stuff because it's interesting. I have no desire to attack anyone. If something I say angers you, perhaps you need to examine what it is you believe and how sure you are of it. If I know something to be wrong, I don't feel threatened by it or angered because of it. But my guess is that you and I would be in complete agreement on the essentials of the faith. The other 10% is all debatable, IMO.
This forum allows optional use of most HTML tags. If your post does not contain HTML, it will be converted to HTML when posted, retaining paragraphs as typed. This conversion is not performed if you have anything resembling an HTML tag in your text.
"Says anyone with the knowledge..."
I was looking for some patristic commentary not scholastic reasoning.
"What I did say was that there is corruption in the church..."
If there is corruption in the Church, there is corruption in the Body of Christ. I'm sorry, but I cannot buy that.
Now, I can accept that different churches can be corrupted by heresy and schism. When a church(that is to say a limb) is corrupted by heresy, it falls away from the healthy whole. Having fallen away, it is no longer of the Church. When a limb is corrupted by schism, the schismatic limb either returns or it slips into heresy. Schism, in other words, is a temporary condition that does not last very long.
There are many examples in the history of the Church of limbs getting infected and falling away from the Church. A few infections were the Nicolaitanism, Gnosticism, Arianism, Eutychianism, Islam, Nestorianism. Churches that became infected and fell way include: Armenian Apostolic, Coptic, Assyrian Church of the East, the Church in Yemen, Church of Sion, Patriarchate of the West.
Get the idea?
We'll have to disagree.
Blessings on you.
"We'll have to disagree."
It looks that way.