Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Tradition" Is Not a Dirty Word
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | Tuesday, October 31, 2006 | Dave Armstrong

Posted on 08/05/2012 5:11:06 AM PDT by GonzoII

"Tradition" Is Not a Dirty Word

Evangelical Protestantism holds, by and large, the view that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., Faith vs. Works, Matter vs. Spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes Tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of "dirty word."

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic Tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the Apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of "Sola Scriptura," or "Scripture Alone," which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or "rule of faith" for evangelical Protestants today. "Sola Scriptura" by its very nature tends to pit Tradition against the Bible, and it is this unbiblical notion which we will presently examine.

First of all, one might also loosely define Tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian History of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history, in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the Incarnation, Miracles, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church's authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is not true. A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like "your tradition," "commandments of men," "tradition of men," as opposed to "the commandment of God." St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God's true traditions). Corrupt Pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus - see, e.g., Matt 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian Tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the Apostles.

The Greek word for "tradition" in the New Testament is "paradosis." It occurs four times in the Bible: in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages:

1) 1 Corinthians 11:2: ". . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you." (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all translate KJV "ordinances" as "tradition{s}").

2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ". . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

3) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. There exists no dichotomy in the Apostle's mind which regards oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical "tradition of men."

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed orally. Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30, 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition which turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn't read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible, as Protestants casually assume. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, the related Greek words "paradidomi" and "paralambano" are usually rendered "delivered" and "received" respectively. St. Paul in particular repeatedly refers to this handing over of the Christian tradition:
1) 1 Corinthians 15:1-3: "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (2) By which
also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures."

2) 1 Thessalonians 2:13: ". . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received {it} not {as} the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

3) Jude 3: ". . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

(Cf.Lk 1:1-2, Rom 6:17, 1 Cor 11:23, Gal 1:9,12, 2 Pet 2:21)
Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as "word of God," "doctrine," "holy commandment," "faith," and "things believed among us." All are "delivered" and "received":
1) Traditions "delivered" (1 Cor 11:2), "taught by word or epistle" (2 Thes 2:15), and "received" (2 Thes 3:6).

2) The Gospel "preached" and "received" (1 Cor 15:1-2, Gal 1:9,12, 1 Thes 2:9).

3) Word of God "heard" and "received" (Acts 8:14, 1 Thes 2:13).

4) Doctrine "delivered" (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).

5) Holy Commandment "delivered" (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9, Mk 7:8-13).

6) The Faith "delivered" (Jude 3).

7) "Things believed among us" "delivered" (Lk 1:1-2).
Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul's writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, "gospel," "word of God," and "tradition" are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that "tradition" is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then "gospel" and "word of God" are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion - the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.

To conclude our biblical survey, we again cite St. Paul and his stress on the central importance of oral tradition:
1) 2 Timothy 1:13-14: "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. (14) That good thing which was
committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us."

2) 2 Timothy 2:2: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to "hold fast" his oral teaching "heard of me," but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine. This is precisely what the Catholic Church calls Tradition (capital "T"), or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, "apostolic succession." The phrase "Deposit of Faith" is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42, Jude 3).

The Catholic Church considers itself merely the Custodian or Guardian of this Revelation from God. These doctrines can and do develop and become more clearly understood over time with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 16:13-15). The development of doctrine is a complex topic, but suffice it to say that although doctrines develop, they cannot change their essential nature in the least. And doctrines with which Protestants agree developed too. For example, the Trinity was only established in its definitive and lasting form in the 4th century, after much deliberation. It was always believed in some sense, but came to be understood in much greater depth and exactitude by the Church, as a result of the challenges of heretics such as the Arians (similar to Jehovah's Witnesses) who disbelieved in it partially or totally.

Protestants who are perplexed or infuriated by the seeming "corruption," "excessive growth," or "extra-biblical nature" of some distinctive aspects of Catholic Tradition, must read an extraordinary book by John Henry Newman, a brilliant Anglican clergyman who converted to Catholicism after writing it in 1845. It is called An Essay on the Development of Christian
Doctrine (a misnomer since it runs about 450 pages!) - well worth the time for anyone seeking to fairly examine the Church's philosophy of organic development and its denial of the Protestant tradition of "Sola Scriptura."

The New Testament itself is a written encapsulation of primitive, apostolic Christianity - the authoritative and insired written revelation of God's New Covenant. It is a development, so to speak, of both the Old Testament and early oral Christian preaching and teaching (i.e., Tradition). The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture. The biblical books were not all immediately obvious to all Christians. Many notable Church Fathers accepted books as part of Scripture which are not now so recognized (e.g., The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement). Many others didn't
accept certain canonical books until very late (e.g., Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation).

Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Christianity does not take the view of Islam, whose written Revelation, the Q'uran, simply came down from heaven from Allah to Mohammad, without involving human participation in the least. Some extreme, fundamentalist forms of "Sola Scriptura" have a very similar outlook, but these fail the test of Scripture itself, like all the other manifestations of the "Bible Alone" mentality. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian Tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself - quite the contrary.

In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as "twin fonts of the one divine well-spring" (i.e., Revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird. A theology which attempts to sunder this organic bond is ultimately logically self-defeating, unbiblical, and divorced from the actual course of early Christian history.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: tradition

1 posted on 08/05/2012 5:11:16 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

And what does the Christian do when oral tradition conflicts with the written word of God?


2 posted on 08/05/2012 6:30:29 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
And what does the Christian do when oral tradition conflicts with the written word of God?

There can be no conflict since both are from an unerring God.

3 posted on 08/05/2012 6:37:57 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Only if tradition gives way.


4 posted on 08/05/2012 7:19:49 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chesley
"Only if tradition gives way."

Of course the written Tradition commands otherwise

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

5 posted on 08/05/2012 7:53:37 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Ah, but that was the traditions of the time. Not the clutter that has since accumulated.

When tradition contradicts Scripture, one must give. I prefer it to be tradition.


6 posted on 08/05/2012 8:11:47 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
I beg to differ. One of the glaring examples is the appointment of men as Christian priests when in fact no such office can be shown from the Scriptures to have existed in the primitive Christan church.
7 posted on 08/05/2012 9:01:42 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
"One of the glaring examples is the appointment of men as Christian priests when in fact no such office can be shown from the Scriptures to have existed in the primitive Christan church."

Christ himself commanded the Apostles to offer sacrifice, (namely that of His own life), which is the office of a priest :

Luk 22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

8 posted on 08/05/2012 9:40:11 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; GonzoII
Priests, by definition, offer sacrifice.

There is one NT High Priest, who is Jesus Christ, and who is priestly precisely because He offers His Body and Blood to the Father. He commanded his Church to extend this same, singular, completed sacrifice through time ("Do this is remembrance of Me") and those who offer this Sacrifice, as he commanded, are called priests.

This was not only commanded in the NT, but prophesized in the OT:

Malachi 1:11

For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, said the LORD of hosts.

This is not the Levitical priesthood, because the sacrifice will be offered "in every place" and "among the Gentiles" --- and it is a "pure" (perfect) sacrifice. This must be the one pure Sacrifice which replaced all the imperfect sacrifices of the OT, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

9 posted on 08/05/2012 9:53:51 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ( "Let us commit ourselves and each other and all our lives unto Christ our God.".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; smvoice; HarleyD; HossB86; wmfights; ...

Your article is lengthy, but presuming you are a reasonable person, i will seek to address the main issues here.

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic Tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the Apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of "Sola Scriptura," or "Scripture Alone," which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.

It is because of the former, that of Rome teaching for doctrines the “tradition of the elders” which do not have Scriptural warrant or are contrary to it, (Mk. 7:1-16) that you have the latter, a overreaction or misunderstanding by some that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible. And thus you have the typical Catholic strawman that Sola Scriptura excludes the use of any other source in understanding God's will, rather than Scripture being alone as the supreme and sufficient authority.

The supremacy of Scripture is supported by Scripture based upon the abundant evidence that as written, the Scripture was the transcendent standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, and which also provides for addition writings being given and recognized in attaining its sufficiency.

However, its sufficiency is not simply formal, that of providing salvific truths that are clear enough that normally a person could be saved by reading, for instance, Peter's sermon on Acts 10:36-43, but sufficiency also refers to material sufficiency (which some RCs affirm), which includes establishing the use of reason, the church and its offices, etc., and which provides for writings being recognized as Scripture (and thus for a canon), as most of them were before there was a church in Rome.

In this respect, after affirming the supremacy of Scripture and is sufficiency, Westminster (cp. 1) adds,

VI. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

CHAPTER XXXI.

III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

And as regards the use of tradition, Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] states in “The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:”

Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings;” http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/deliberate-fiction.html

To which can be added,

THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION - Page 2 (Heinrich Bullinger: Calvinist confession; adopted by the Reformed Church not only throughout Switzerland but in Scotland (1566), Hungary (1567), France (1571), Poland (1578), and next to the Heidelberg Catechism is the most generally recognized Confession of the Reformed Church.)

Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.

Evangelical authorities Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie state,

The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not meanas Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance. http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf

Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as "word of God," "doctrine," "holy commandment," "faith," and "things believed among us."

It is true that some of Scripture was first oral, nor is all that could be known written, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet the norm was that oral Divine revelation was subsequently written, and in fact, it is hard to find any place where specific oral (or in dreams, visions) revelation referred to as the “word of God/the Lord does not refer to something that was not subsequently written. Nor can it be proved that the “traditions of 1Thes. 2:15 were not, nor were they were oral stories passed through generations that could not be written, as per Rome's tradition. And it is also true that “the word of the Lord” can refer to preaching the general Scripturally-substantiated truths of the gospel, which all the church did, (Acts 8:4) and which SS-type preachers claim. While every time they have a wedding they are in some way upholding a tradition, though the cultural form is not to be made a doctrine.

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to "hold fast" his oral teaching "heard of me," but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine.

This is true, and historically SS-type churches engaged in such, but what Paul referred to was truths which were based upon Scriptural substantiation, as "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, " (Acts 17:2)

"And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. " (Acts 28:23)

And which substantiation was not simply in text but in power, that of the supernatural attestation which Scripture reveals God giving to His word, (Mk. 16:20) especially to new revelation.

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? " (Hebrews 2:3-4)

In contrast, Rome cannot claim to have new revelation, or the manifest credentials of apostolic authority. (Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) And while she claims to be uniquely protected from error, that her formulaic infallibility, this is not promised in Scripture to any mortal (even the inspired writers of Holy Writ), nor is it necessary, as writings were recognized as Scripture and Truth was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium.

And in reality, the veracity of her Traditions and claims are not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, (if it were, she would accede primacy to that), nor are the reasons behind an infallible pronouncements necessarily infallible, but assurance of her veracity rest upon herself, as she has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. And upon this premise the Catholic finds his assurance (though whether a pronouncement is infallible can be a matter of interpretation).

This is referred to as sola ecclesia, and which is shared by cults. And Roman Catholic apologists point to disagreements and divisions under SS as disallowing that, yet under sola ecclesia there are also disagreements divisions within Catholicism, in which Tradition, Scripture and history are interpreted differently.

However, the Lord appealed to Scripture in combating the devil's wresting of it, (Mt. 4), and His Truth and that of the church were established by Scriptural substantiation in text and in power, overcoming evil with Good. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And thus the church began in dissent from those, who, like Rome, presumed a level of veracity beyond what Scripture promises mortals, apart from its teachings, and who thus rejected the Itinerant Preacher whose claims were Scripturally established. (Mk. 11:28-33)

10 posted on 08/05/2012 10:35:41 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute actual sinner, + trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chesley; GonzoII

Ah, but that was the traditions of the time. Not the clutter that has since accumulated. When tradition contradicts Scripture, one must give. I prefer it to be tradition.

Surely you know it is impossible for there to be any contradiction between Scripture and RC Tradition, even when the Orthodox view of Tradition differs, as Rome has infallible declared that she is infallible, whenever she speaks in accordance with her scope and subject-based criteria.

Thus Tradition, Scripture and history can only mean what she authoritatively says they mean, which (among other things), that Scripture and history can only mean what she authoritatively says they mean.

Thus, when faced with challenged, she can respond as no less an authority than Manning asserted,

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....

I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

Thus to which can be added,

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. — John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”

“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”

“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” — Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

11 posted on 08/05/2012 10:40:13 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute actual sinner, + trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; Mrs. Don-o; count-your-change; chesley; metmom; boatbums; caww; ...
Christ himself commanded the Apostles to offer sacrifice, (namely that of His own life), which is the office of a priest

All believers are called to offer sacrifice, and upon that premise all would be priests, and which they are. (1Pt. 2:5)

But what is in dispute is a separate class of (normatively) celibate men called sacerdotal priests, but which title the Holy Spirit only gives to Jewish and pagan clerics, while calling those who fill the pastoral office of the church "bishops" and "elders," as denoting one pastoral office.* (Titus 1:5-7)

The terms such as priests, "reverends," "most reverend," Cardinal, etc. were a latter development of the institutionalized church. And rather than requiring and presuming they all had the gift of celibacy - though a good thing in itself, and is only "church law" - they were normatively, at least, married. (1Tim. 3:2-4;; Titus 1:6; 1Cor. 9:4)

*

Titus 1:5-7: Bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1. This does not exclude that there could have been “archbishops/elders” in the New Testament church who were head pastors over others, but there is no titular distinctions in Scripture denoting such, and which distinctions are part of the hierarchical class distinctions which came later, and foster love of titles and position which the Lord warned about. (Mk. 10:42-44; Mt. 23:8-10).

Does presbyter or elder mean priest?

In her effort to conform the Bible to her erroneous understanding of what the elements used in the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Roman Catholicism (and near kin) came to render presbuteros” as “priests” in English (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” but neither of which is the same word which is distinctly used for priests*, that being “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) Nor does presbuteros or episkopos denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.

The only priesthood (hierateuma) of the church is that of all believers as they function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)

Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but unlike presbuteros and episkopos. the two were not the same in language or in function, as one could be a elder without formally being a priest. Even the Latin word (sacerdos) which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.”

Despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” by way of functional equivalence, supposing that the bishops turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ which is then physically consumed. However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), and the sacrifice involved in this is one which all communicants are to engage in, that of unselfish love for His body, the church (as shown here in the exegesis of 1Cor. 11:17-33). Moreover, despite Rome's centralization of this act as a cardinal doctrine, little is taught on it, the description of the Lord's supper and of disciples breaking bread neither assigns nor infers that pastors engaged in transforming the elements, but simply show it to be a communal meal. Thus formally identifying a distinctive class of Christian clergy as “priests” rather than “presbyters” (elders) is not only grammatically incorrect by is functionally unwarranted and unscriptural.

In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,

No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.

Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.

To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. (http://isv.org/catacombs/elders.htm)

12 posted on 08/05/2012 10:40:17 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute actual sinner, + trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

There’s nothing wrong with tradition, small t, as long as it doesn’t supplant Scripture as Tradition, capital T, is known to do.


13 posted on 08/05/2012 11:03:58 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: metmom

...under the premise that “Church” capitalized, refers to one who infallibly declares that she alone is the OTC.


14 posted on 08/05/2012 11:15:54 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute actual sinner, + trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; count-your-change

I see a lot of Pauline quotes, very few Jesus quotes.

“Their worship is in vain, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from G-d.”
Matt. 15:9

Personally, I abide by the teachings of Jesus only, much like the original disciples. This is what Catholics would label as “Primitive Christianity”.

I label it as “The Judaism of Jesus”.

The structure of the modern church and it’s traditions are based on the spurious “Pastoral Epistles”.
Those spurious epistles contradict Jesus’ teachings explicitly.

The fact that Jesus chastised the Temple Priests for accepting man-made tradition (Talmudic law) over G-d’s Law is an allegory lost on today’s christianity.
Also lost is the fact that Jesus and the 12 disciples as well as the original 40,000 believers in Jerusalem were Jews (or became Jews) who worshipped at Temple and never created a new religion.

The only Jews to ever leave and create a new religion were Stephen and the Hellenists. They were removed from the original community and eventually served as Paul’s indoctrinators into their morality-only hellenistic judaism that forsook G-d’s written Law.

The preposterous and false ideology that the gentile mission superseded the original Mission of Jesus is not lost on me, thankfully. As I understand the Mission of Jesus and it wasn’t superseded because Paul is not equal too or higher ranking that Jesus or Jesus’ Mission & teachings.

It would do many christians well to read Jesus’ words only, for once and keep an “Old Testament” handy that isn’t translated by christians from greek.

If you want to truly understand Jesus’ Mission & teachings you must do it the same way he taught his disciples....from Torah/Tanakh.

It’s like your average christian church-goer must think that Jesus and the disciples walked around ancient Israel with a gilded New Testament under each arm. They never think about the fact that it was the hebrew/aramaic Torah/Tanakh that Jesus taught, all from memorization and all oral.

Jesus’ Mission is like a SOP (standard operating procedure) that is at complete odds with what Paul’s writings teach, and since Paul doesn’t rate higher than Jesus, nor his equal, I’m going to study Jesus’ Mission.


15 posted on 08/05/2012 11:19:20 AM PDT by brent13a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; count-your-change
Here is a list I've compiled over years of research for various papers and reports. It comes from christian scholars so if you have problems take it up with the christian scholars. And YES, the pages cited correspond to referenced books at the bottom.
And as I stated above, Jesus' Mission & teachings will always supersede any others....Jesus' words will always supersede.....when it comes to how we worship G-d and Follow G-d.

The Mission and Aims of Jesus the Galilean Jew

-Jesus was concerned for the fulfillment of the restorative promises of G-d to Israel, and the constitution of a restored relationship between G-d and his Chosen People.

P. 237 Huat Tan

-The aim of Jesus was to live according to the will of G-d, of which the Law with the Prophets formed the chief revelation. His viewpoint was ordinary Judaism, he behaved as a pious Jew of Galilee would have been expected.
P. 19 Evans

-The mission of Jesus was a proclamation of the coming of G-d’s kingly rule, a regathering or reconstituting of the tribes of Israel at the End-of-the-Age. Jesus addressed his proclamation to Israel in its promised land.

P. 385 Meier

-Jesus understood his main task was to be the center of the movement which was a revival. This revival was the realization of the kingdom of G-d among mankind on earth.
P. 88 Flusser

-Jesus’ mission was to initiate a straightforward challenge: Be better than than the Pharisees. Outdo them in righteousness. Live the Covenant with G-d to the fullest, following the Law carefully, paying attention not only to the required conduct but also the corresponding right attitude. Plan for the kingdom of G-d.

P. 83 Wilson

-Jesus took his literal message of the imminence of the end, of the Current Age, to Jews who were not faithful. Jesus taught that the 'lost' Jews should return to G-d's true way. Jesus described Jews who had fallen away from G-d, and did not observe the Mosaic Law as they should, as "sinners" and "Lost Sheep”.

P. 59 Casey

-Jesus believed his teachings were a prophetic intensification of Jewish tradition and Mosaic Law. Jesus also taught detailed ethical instructions that were an intensification of certain aspects of the Mosaic Law. These certain intensifications were especially relevant for returning sinners.

P. 60 Casey

-Jesus’ mission was directed to all Israel both geographically and socially, it covered all regions and included all classes of Jews. It went beyond the borders of geographical Israel to Jews of the neighboring countries, and was addressed to notorious ‘sinners’, whom the national elite had ostracized and excommunicated.

P. 164 Evans

-Jesus went to Jerusalem to bring his ministry and G-d's restorative program to a climax. Jesus believed that Israel was still, to some extent, in a state of exile and therefore full restoration was still pending.

P. 233 Huat Tan

-Jesus understood that G-d was seeking to gather Jerusalem. Hence, the restoration of Jerusalem to be the city of G-d's kingship was the goal of Jesus.
P. 230 Huat Tan

-The sayings traditions confirm that Zion was like a magnet to Jesus and a countervailing charge of his ministry. It was understood by Jesus to be the city of G-d's kingship and he sought the restoration of it to that kingship.

P. 231 Huat Tan

-Jesus is the only known Jew of ancient times to have taught that not only was the world at the threshold of the End-of-the-Age but also that the New Age of salvation had begun.

P. 80 Flusser

-Jesus believed in an intermediary period between the historical past and the End- of-the-Age. Jesus is also the only known Jew to have identified the kingdom of G-d with that intermediary period.

P. 86 Flusser

-For Jesus the kingdom of G-d was both present and future. Jesus believed there were already individuals living in the manifested kingdom, because the ministry of John the Baptist was when the kingdom began breaking through.

P. 80 Flusser


References:
Evans, Craig A. The Historical Jesus: Jesus’ mission, death, and Resurrection. London New York: Routledge, 2004.

Flusser, David. The Sage from Galilee : Rediscovering Jesus' genius. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2007.
Huat Tan, Kim. The Zion traditions and the aims of Jesus. Cambridge England New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Wilson, Barrie. How Jesus became Christian. Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2009.

Casey, Maurice. From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God. Westminster John Knox, 1992.

Meier, John P. “Jesus, the Twelve, and the Restoration of Israel” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Leiden:Brill, 2001.
16 posted on 08/05/2012 11:35:36 AM PDT by brent13a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
"And what does the Christian do when oral tradition conflicts with the written word of God?"

Since both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are from the same well-spring and coequally form the deposit of Faith. If it appears that to you that they contradict one another your interpretations of one or both are in error.

Peace be with you.

17 posted on 08/05/2012 11:53:21 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; count-your-change

Oh, and before anyone chastises me with pauline quotations, nowhere in the “Old Testament” nor in by Jesus’ words alone am I commanded to have faith in and follow the mission and teachings of anyone else besides The Messiah.
Nowhere in the “Old Testament” nor in by Jesus’ words alone am I commanded by G-d to follow any other teaching or path than that of the Son of G-d…….which is the same Path that G-d originally gave……which would be the path of Jesus also.
To say that Paul’s mission to the gentiles was mutually inclusive with Jesus’ Mission & Teachings…..well……there is a lot of historical fact (outside of ‘The Church’) that belies that ideology.


18 posted on 08/05/2012 11:55:36 AM PDT by brent13a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
“He commanded his Church to extend this same, singular, completed sacrifice through time (”Do this is remembrance of Me”) and those who offer this Sacrifice, as he commanded, are called priests.”

As Paul says in Hebrews, chapter nine, Christ was offered once for all time and that altar was in heaven after his death and resurrection, therefore the eating of that last meal was not a sacrifice but a remembrance, a memorial, (”Do this is remembrance of Me”) and Malachi's prophecy (3:1) sets the time at Christ's appearance.

A priesthood did not exist in the primitive Christian church. Only Christ offered his blood and flesh as a high priest and those Christians that would serve as under priests AND kings would do so after their resurrection to heaven. (Rev. 20:4)

19 posted on 08/05/2012 12:46:27 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Excellent post.


20 posted on 08/05/2012 1:42:39 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brent13a

Sad, but some people think that St. Paul is more important than Jesus Christ.

Forget about John’s Gospel and the letters of John where the Bible specifically says that it does not contain all of Christ’s teachings.


21 posted on 08/05/2012 1:50:16 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
"Tradition" Is Not a Dirty Word
Essays for Lent: Tradition

Prayer and monasticism in Orthodox tradition (Prayer and silence)
The Tradition of Midnight Mass: History
Charles Borromeo and Catholic Tradition, re: Catholic Architecture [Catholic Caucus]
Revelation, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium
Tradition and Progress Not Opposed, Pope Tells Liturgy Conference
Rome's Station Churches Revive Ancient Tradition
Antioch Tradition Adorns the Church, Says Pope
CARA Reports on Religious Life Confirm Tradition [Catholic Caucus]
Apostolic Tradition [Church Fathers contra Sola Scriptura]
"Little Lost Lambeth," What Christian Tradition, Lambeth Conference & Aldous Huxley have in common

22 posted on 08/05/2012 2:09:19 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brent13a

“To say that Paul’s mission to the gentiles was mutually inclusive with Jesus’ Mission & Teachings…..well……there is a lot of historical fact (outside of ‘The Church’) that belies that ideology.”

So please, do share this “lot of historical fact” with us.


23 posted on 08/05/2012 2:38:38 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: brent13a

I don’t know how Paul contradicts the teaching of the Tanach or Jesus, but expounds on it.

The redemptive plan always included the nations, if only secondarily. If you only had the Tanach you could still love God and thank him for the Savior to come, but praise Him, He is here.

If the law of Moses was sufficient unto men, then why the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 ? (but this a Pauline question)

If you reject the epistles, from where does your faith in the gospel quotes of Jesus rise. Are Luke and Acts spurious also, being that Paul and Luke were cohorts?

I will agree that Jesus chastised the Temple Priests for loving their religion more than God ( the Talmudic laws are 400 years after), and I see the same in many religions today.


24 posted on 08/05/2012 2:58:34 PM PDT by anathemized (cursed by some, blessed in Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
There's a development of structure and office as well as a development of doctrine (not an invention or a manufacture, but a true "development" meaning an unfolding of its own proper nature.) If I'm understanding yhou correctly, you take a minimalist view of the ongoing authority of the successors of the Apostles, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to direct the ongoing development of the Church.

What we see in Clement of Rome (who died within the Apostolic era, i.e. in 99 AD, before even the death of John on Patmos) and Ignatius of Antioch, (d. ca. 108 AD) and Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165 A.D. ) is already, in embryonic form, what you'll see in the Church today.

Possibly you make the assumption that the Church has no capacity to develop structurally or doctrinally under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It's as if to say, a mustard seed is supposed to stay a mustard seed, it's not supposed to branch out,grow big, and develop. Such a view is, in my view, mistaken.

This is in view of the fact that Jesus Himself said hat the Holy Spirit would continue to lead us "into all Truth" (meaning that there was still to be a further, deeper, wider undersanding), and that St. John says, both in his Gospel and in his Epistles, that Jesus taught them a lot, LOT more tha wasnt written in the Gospels. Yes, John says that. We can certaibly see that in the teachings of faithful men who were taught by thre Apostles themselves (e.g. Clement, Ignatius, the authors of the Didache, and other of the first-generation and second-generation successors.)

Peace be with you.

25 posted on 08/05/2012 3:08:19 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ( "Let us commit ourselves and each other and all our lives unto Christ our God.".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
“Possibly you make the assumption that the Church has no capacity to develop structurally or doctrinally under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It's as if to say, a mustard seed is supposed to stay a mustard seed, it's not supposed to branch out,grow big, and develop. Such a view is, in my view, mistaken.”

But the mustard seed will not produce anything other than a mustard plant so whatever is to “develop structurally or doctrinally” cannot be contrary to or supersede the authority granted to the Christian church by Christ or the basic teachings of Christ and his apostles even if such claim is made for guidance by Holy Spirit.

Paul makes the point that men taught by an apostle of Christ, Paul himself.....from amongst them would arise false teachers to “speak twisted things”. (Acts 20:31)

“..... St. John says, both in his Gospel and in his Epistles, that Jesus taught them a lot, LOT more tha wasnt written in the Gospels.”

Understandably so but these unwritten sayings would not be contrary to nor more explicit than what Jesus had already stated otherwise we should be at some pains to explain why the silence from all the apostles on a priesthood within the Christian church.

Peter, Paul, and notably John do indeed speak to a priests/kings body but it was not to operate on earth but from heaven.
That was the proper nature of the priesthood/kingship and unless there has been some change, still is.

As Paul pointed out, some wanted to begin their rules now without the apostles (1 Cor. 4:8) but such was not to be.

There simply is no authorization or principle or foundation in the N.T. church for the setting up a human priesthood.

26 posted on 08/05/2012 5:29:55 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Whenever I consider the veracity of tradition I consider the use of tradition by Sadducees and Pharisees at the time of the Incarnation. What good did tradition provide for the thinking through faith in Christ?


27 posted on 08/05/2012 7:04:51 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Evidently their traditions were a hindrance to faith in Christ.
28 posted on 08/05/2012 7:26:22 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; GonzoII
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant,
wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Heb 10:32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
Heb 10:33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.
Heb 10:34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
Heb 10:35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
Heb 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. Heb 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Heb 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

29 posted on 08/05/2012 8:36:42 PM PDT by Lera (Proverbs 29:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lera

Good verses, including,

“Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.”

“For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” (Ephesians 2:18)

And not via a saintly secretary.

Ps. You might be interested in the E-Sword Bible program (http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html), which (as with some others) enables you to copy verses in paragraph mode, like,

Heb 10:19-22 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, (20) By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; (21) And having an high priest over the house of God; (22) Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Or

Heb 10:19-22
(19) Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
(20) By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
(21) And having an high priest over the house of God;
(22) Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

You select the verses then choose “copy verses” and then hit #8 for the first example (or #9 without individual verse numbers) or #3 for the second format.

I also use a program called BPBible which allows more customization in copying.

Then there is the Word, etc. Thank God for them all, and for His Word.


30 posted on 08/06/2012 3:53:48 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute actual sinner, + trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

You may want to see,

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/vaticanIanddevelopment.html

http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/

http://thulcandra.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/klaus-schatz-on-priesthood-canon-and-the-development-of-doctrine/


31 posted on 08/06/2012 4:20:12 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute actual sinner, + trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Thanks for the tip using esword :)
I actually use the program all the time but I am lazy and use cut and paste *sigh*

I like this part too :)
Should speak clearly about the error of Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass and any priest being able to absolve anyone of their sins

(Heb 10:11) And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;


32 posted on 08/06/2012 7:38:24 AM PDT by Lera (Proverbs 29:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Thank you for the links, I’ve been rather slow in reading them.


33 posted on 08/06/2012 10:41:40 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chesley; anathemized; count-your-change; Salvation; GonzoII
Explain these contradictions….of Paul vs. Jesus


-1. Jesus Taught that Man's Governments of the World Are Under Satan, But Paul Says Their Secular Rulers Are Agents of G-d

Compare Luke 4:5-8, John 18:36, 19:18, Acts 4:26 (Ps 2:2) versus Paul in Romans 13:1-5.
The Restored Kingdom of G-d is described in the Gospels as of another order from the entire realm of the nations, which are ruled by The Adversary and whereby Jesus was crucified. On the other hand, the secular authorities with all their weaponry are stated by Paul to be G-d's own agents. (Romans 13:1-5.)

While Jesus did not provoke outright rebellion against Roman authorities like John the Baptist and the Essenes, he clearly did not consider their rule to be blessed by G-d. Paul, in contrast, again and again encouraged peaceful compliance with Roman rules and requirements. "Slaves were to compliantly serve their masters: women were to be subject to their husbands."

-2. Jesus Says Don't Exclude Heretics Or Judge Them; Paul Says Exclude Them

Jesus told us in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares how to deal with heretics. You leave them for judgment day to be separated out from the true church. But Paul teaches to exclude/shun those who come with different doctrines than Paul taught. (Titus 3:10-11 "shun a heretical person after 2 warnings"). Paul even curses them. (Gal. 1:8-9 "anyone who preaches another gospel than we preach, let him be eternally condemned.")

-3. Jesus Says Only G-d Is Your Spiritual Father, and Call No Man on Earth Your Father, But Paul Says He Is The Corinthians' Only Spiritual Father

And do not call yourself Father for your Father is one who is in heaven. (Matt. 23:9)
But Paul says:
For even if you had ten thousand others to teach you about Christ, you have only one spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you. (1 Cor. 4:15)

-4. Jesus Says Salvation Is By Returning to Torah (Repenting) and Obedience With Faith; Paul Says This is Heresy

Every time the word REPENT is used by Jesus it isn't some innocent word that simply means "confessing away your sins".
Did you know that the Hebrew (and Aramaic) word that "repent)"was translated from (tubh) actually means RETURNING or to return? (being that Jesus and the disciples spoke a dead version of Aramaic) So therefore Jesus was always telling his followers to RETURN to G-D, get back on the path of G-D's Word (G-d's Word is Torah). He wasn't telling anyone & everyone to simply pray away their "sins"…….the Lost Sheep of Israel had to RETURN…….

Paul's main salvation verses at odds with Jesus:
Romans 3:28 "man is justified by faith apart from observing the law".
Romans 4:5 "To the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness".
Gal. 5:4 "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace".
Romans 7:6 "Now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law, so that we serve in a new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code".
Gal. 2:16 "A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, because by observing the law no one will be justified".
Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith, this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast."

Here where it matters most, Paul has a different voice than Jesus (ישוע). Paul's themes are alien to Jesus’ message of salvation. They undercut, if not destroy, the message of Jesus (ישוע). The true sheep of Jesus recognize His voice, and will not follow another. (John 10:27)

-5. Paul Says Elders Are Entitled To Pay for 'Preaching & Teaching,' But Jesus Says No

In 1 Tim. 5:17, Paul wrote: "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." Then Paul uses a verse about not muzzling an ox in an inapposite extension to imply churchgoers have a duty to pay the elders for their service. (1 Tim. 5:18.)

But Jesus said to His disciples to lay no cost on anyone they served by preaching and healing? "Heal the sick, restore life to the dead, cleanse the lepers and cast out demons from men. Do not take wages. Freely you have received, freely you shall give". (Matt. 10:8) Jesus in the prior verse was commanding the Disciples to go out and preach the gospel, so the context makes quite clear that no charge was to be made on auditors to hear the truth of YHWH.

-6. Jesus Says To Shun Sinning Believers; Paul Says To Kill Them

In Matthew 18, Jesus says if one has something against a brother, to try to work it out privately. If this does not work, bring "one or two" to witness the conversation. If you brother will not hear you and these others, "And if he will also not listen to them, tell the assembly. And if he will also not listen to the assembly, let him be to you like a tax collector and like a heathen." (Matt. 18:17.) Authorities generally interpret this to mean to shun them.
But Paul teaches someone who is caught in a relationship with his stepmother should be "turned over to Satan for the extermination of the flesh" (1 Cor. 5:5) -- this means delivering that man over to the secular authorities for execution.

-7. Paul Exhorts Celibacy, But Jesus Clearly Says It is A Choice Not Within Everyone's Power

Paul taught against being married. He wrote in 1 Cor. 10:27-28:
"Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin."
In line with this Paul also wrote:
"I wish all were as I am," meaning unmarried. (1 Cor. 7:7.)
To help prevent the desire to be married, Paul said: ‘It is good that a man should not touch a woman.’ (1 Cor. 7:1.) And this gives one example in which Paul intended us to "Be imitators of me." (1 Cor. 4:16.) Paul clearly endorses celibacy for us too as a superior way of life.

However, Jesus speaks differently of celibacy as something for some but not all disciples. It is not a command or even an exhortation. It is merely a legitimate option. "Whoever is able to understand let him understand." Matt. 19:12.
The contradiction arises because Jesus never says or implies "do not seek marriage." Significantly, Jesus never applies any moral pressure to be celibate, while Paul clearly does so.

-8. Jesus Says There Is One Pastor and Teacher (Himself), But Paul Says There Are Many Pastors and Teachers

Jesus called his students/followers to follow HIS teachings.
Jesus stated they should follow him & his way alone.
Nowhere did he ever state for his students/followers to follow him AND another way.
Nowhere did he ever state for his students/followers to follow his teachings AND another different teaching ALSO.

Come after me and I will make you……..(Matt 4:19)
Come follow me now….. (Matt 8:22)
Come follow me….. (Matt 9:9)

I am the Good Shepherd….and there will be one flock with one shepherd. (John 10:11 & 16)

John, personally chosen by Jesus and who lived with him for 3 years and studied under him, tells us that we need no other Word than that of G-d as given through our Teacher & Shepherd, Jesus:

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth….….And you also, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. (1 John 2:20 & 27)

Paul says that we should follow him and all those he appoints in addition to Jesus:
"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors (shepherds, Greek poimenas) and teachers...." (Eph. 4:11)
"Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." (1 Cor. 4:15)

-9. Paul Says G-d Is The God of the Dead, But Jesus Says G-d Is Not The God of the Dead

Paul speaks of the "Lord of the dead and the living." (Romans 14:9.) But Jesus says "G-d is not the G-d of the dead but the living." (Luke 20:38.)

-10. Paul Says G-d Does Not Live in Temples Made of Human Hands, But Jesus Says He Does

Paul says "G-d who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands." (Acts 17:24). However, Jesus said, in a correction of Pharisees who thought an oath offered "by" articles offered at the Temple were binding but not an oath by the Temple at Jerusalem itself: " "He who swears by the temple swears by the temple and He Who dwells within it". (Matt. 23:21.) Hence, Jesus’ stated that because the article of the Temple is less important than the Temple where G-d dwells at Jerusalem, an oath "by" the Temple is as binding as an oath by an article. The importance of this is Jesus affirms G-d does live in a temple made of human hands, but Paul says this is untrue.

-11. Jesus Says Not To Eat Meat Sacrificed to Idols, But Paul Says It Is Ok

Three times Jesus in the Book of Revelation condemns eating meat sacrificed to idols, even saying this is the doctrine of a false prophet. This absolute prescription also was set forth in James' ruling at the Jerusalem Council in Acts. However, Paul clearly teaches three times that there is nothing wrong in itself eating meat sacrificed to idols. (Romans 14:21;1 Corinthians 8:4-13, and 1 Corinthians 10:19-29).
34 posted on 08/09/2012 8:59:23 AM PDT by brent13a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chesley; anathemized; count-your-change; Salvation; GonzoII
I will reiterate:

Jesus called his students/followers to follow HIS teachings.
Jesus stated they should follow him & his way alone.
Nowhere did he ever state for his students/followers to follow him AND another way.
Nowhere did he ever state for his students/followers to follow his teachings AND another different teaching ALSO.

Come after me and I will make you……..(Matt 4:19)
Come follow me now….. (Matt 8:22)
Come follow me….. (Matt 9:9)

I am the Good Shepherd….and there will be one flock with one shepherd. (John 10:11 & 16)

John, personally chosen by Jesus and who lived with him for 3 years and studied under him, tells us that we need no other Word than that of G-d as given through our Teacher & Shepherd, Jesus:

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth….….And you also, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. (1 John 2:20 & 27)


Yet somehow we have Paul commanding us to follow HIM and all his hellenistic philosophy, INSTEAD of following Jesus who taught Torah
Paul raises himself up to be equal too and the same as Jesus:

"Therefore I urge you to follow ME. (1 Cor. 4:16)
"Brothers, join in imitating ME, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in US." (Phil. 3:17)
Now to him who is able to establish you IN ACCORDANCE WITH MY GOSPEL, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, (1 Cor. 16:25)
"Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. (1 Cor. 4:15) "For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles." (2 Cor. 11:5)
Now I’m happy to be suffering for you. I’m completing what is missing from Christ’s sufferings with my body. I’m doing this for the sake of his body, which is the church. (Col 1:24)
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings WE passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Tim. 2:15)
"In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, WE command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from US." (2 Thess 3:6)
"But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me…." (Gal. 1:15-16)
"From now on, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." (Gal. 6:17)


I'm sorry but I put Jesus and his teachings from G-d above all others. I "imitate" and follow Jesus alone.
35 posted on 08/09/2012 9:01:18 AM PDT by brent13a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chesley; anathemized; count-your-change; Salvation; GonzoII
Back on the OP's theme of man-made tradition.....

I find it just so weird (and an ultimate contradiction) that if christians worship the same G-d (YHWH) as Jews then how are His commands regarding worship different for them and the Jews? Where exactly did Jesus do away with the rules of worship that apply to the supposed same G-d of christians & the Jews?

Somewhere, specifically, Jesus stated that the following commands regarding Worship of G-d do not apply to one set of people but to others…..Jesus very specifically stated the following only applies to jews but not christians……right?

Deut. 12:3-4:
“And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place.” You shall not worship the Lord your G-dwith such things.”

Deut. 13:12-18
If you hear it said about one of the towns, the Lord your G-d is giving you to live in, that some worthless men have gone out from among you and have seduced the inhabitants of their city, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods ' whom you have not known.
In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.
Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your G-d. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then G-d will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors.
Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then G-d will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors.
The Lord your G-dwill do this if you listen to him, obey all the commands that I'm giving you today, and do what he considers right.

Deut. 18:9-15
“When you come to the land that the Lord your G-d is giving you, do not learn to do the revolting practices of those nations. Among you, there shall not be found anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire, who practices stick divination, who divines auspicious times, who divines by omens, who practices witchcraft, who uses incantations, who consults mediums and oracles, or who attempts to communicate with the dead. Anyone involved in these practices is repulsive to G-d, and it was because of repulsive practices such as these that the Lord your G-d is driving out these nations before you. You must therefore remain totally faithful to the Lord your G-d. The nations that you are driving out listen to astrologers and stick diviners, but what G-d has given you is totally different. In your midst, G-d will set up for you a prophet like me from among your brethren, and it is to him that you must listen.”

So G-d commands EVERYONE that we cannot utilize anything pagan to worship him, we cannot "take-over" nor "adopt" heathen places, buildings, statues, pictures in His name and act as though they are meant for Him. We cannot "take-over" or "adopt" heathen holy days or festivals and assert them as G-d's. These commands apply to worship of G-d…..being the supposed same being that christians also worship.

So then why is christianity (specifically it's doctrine) built on a foundation in direct disobedience to G-d (being the same "God" that christians supposedly worship)?

Of course, even though christians maintain their version of the Torah/Tanakh in their version of the scriptures, and read from it occasionally, whatever G-d actually said is irrelevant because (according to them) somehow it only applies to the Jews.

Of course, even though Jesus quotes & teaches extensively and only from the Torah/Tanakh, it's actually irrelevant………..

“Their worship is in vain, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from G-d.” (Matt. 15:9)

But that only applies to Jews, right?
36 posted on 08/09/2012 9:18:12 AM PDT by brent13a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: brent13a

So, what’s your point? Succintly.


37 posted on 08/09/2012 10:18:07 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: brent13a
Frankly, I'm a little confused as to what this has to do with my statement about tradition.
38 posted on 08/09/2012 10:28:46 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: brent13a

I’m begining to think that you do not like Paul.

That’s OK, but what is the difference then from your point of view and a cult of Judaism?

Sorry, for me, Paul was an apostle inspired by God. Not Jesus of course, who was the Sonn of God, and God Himself, but as inspired as any of the Old Testament prophets.

so I repeat, what exactly is your point?


39 posted on 08/09/2012 10:40:56 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: chesley
Sorry, for me, Paul was an apostle inspired by God. Not Jesus of course, who was the Sonn of God, and God Himself, but as inspired as any of the Old Testament prophets.

When Paul says his gospel is directly from Jesus himself, that's pretty much exactly what "inspired" means.
40 posted on 08/09/2012 10:47:46 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
When Paul says his gospel is directly from Jesus himself, that's pretty much exactly what "inspired" means.

That's pretty much my interpretation, too. although there are those that think Paul is completely superfluous to "authentic" Christianity.

41 posted on 08/09/2012 11:17:34 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Re-reading what I wrote, I think you misinterpreted what I meant. It was clumsily phrased.

What I meant was that Paul was not Jesus, nor on the level of Jesus, who is God.

Sorry for the confusion.


42 posted on 08/09/2012 11:19:37 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: brent13a
“I find it just so weird (and an ultimate contradiction) that if christians worship the same G-d (YHWH) as Jews then how are His commands regarding worship different for them and the Jews?”

And I might find it “weird” that your attention is not directed inward first.
In the midst of the Jewish nation sits the one of it's most holy sites covered with a pagan monument yet the Jewish nation seems quite content with this.

Where is Jewish obedience to the Law you quote?

“Deut. 13:12-18
If you hear it said about one of the towns, the Lord your G-d is giving you to live in, that some worthless men have gone out from among you and have seduced the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods ‘ whom you have not known.
In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.”

Where is the Law are Jews released from the obligation to offer animal sacrifices for their sins?

The Law hasn't changed, YHWH hasn't changed, so where are the altars and sacrifices of bulls, sheep, etc.?

43 posted on 08/09/2012 12:11:58 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: chesley
That's pretty much my interpretation, too. although there are those that think Paul is completely superfluous to "authentic" Christianity.

Ha ha, there are a whole bunch of people who don't like Paul. For some, he must be fake because his Christology is too advanced for the stage of theological evolution that was supposed to characterize the mid First Century church. For others, he seems to waste too much time nattering on and on about Israel to be taken seriously as someone ushering in the Age of the Church, ha ha ha. Look at Paul: In Fresh Perspective (2009) and Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (2009) by N.T. Wright to see a way of looking at Paul that uses both eyes and doesn't involve a lot of theological squinting to make things appear to go together that don't.
44 posted on 08/09/2012 12:20:03 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Look at Paul: In Fresh Perspective (2009) and Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (2009) by N.T. Wright

Thanks, I'll just do that little thing.

45 posted on 08/09/2012 1:05:58 PM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson