wad caused the 'breakaway'?
-
i will argue that the Gospels that we see today are also based on the same oral tradition.Originally posted by vince69:Huh?
in a perfect setting, church (both catholic and protestant) traditions should not contradict scripture, but tradition being man made (most of the time) does have it flaws and may happen to contradict scripture (so I would not say, its never happen).
that's why, I ask this question on can traditions be use as a benchmark to interpret scripture?
The main qualifying criteria for a Gospel to be enetered in the Bible at the council of Hippo was that it had to descibe the flow of salvation history. However, this doesn't mean that other oral traditions were false -
Originally posted by vince69:
very cheeky ah vince... u add in the alone after u quote the verse. But technically, the word alone was never there in the bible. although Martin luther added the word 'alone' in his translation (or at keast that was what i was taught, i havent actually looked at a protestant bible on this point yet)
lets see if I remember correctly (think its something like this, can't remember the exact wordings)
"The righteous shall live by faith", faith in the finished of Christ [b]alone for our salvation.
on the scripture, the Bible alone as the sole authority in all things that leads to righteousness. [/b]
cutting a part out from catholic.com
But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin LutherÂ’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from JohnÂ’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. -
draw ur attention to another verse
"stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). -
and did those traditions get adulterated as the church progressed? exactly what traditions were taught?Originally posted by ben1xy:draw ur attention to another verse
"stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). -
Ben,Originally posted by ben1xy:i will argue that the Gospels that we see today are also based on the same oral tradition.
The main qualifying criteria for a Gospel to be enetered in the Bible at the council of Hippo was that it had to descibe the flow of salvation history. However, this doesn't mean that other oral traditions were false
I am not saying all traditions are false, my question is what if it happen that some of these traditions contridict that of Scriptures. And I am not talking only about the Catholic Church, pls do not think for one moment that Protestant Churches do not have questionable church practices/traditions as well.
ok... just for discussion, allow me to take an example:
There are some charismatic/pentacostal churches that insists on believer to be "born again in the spirit" in order to be comfirmed about their salvation, and the way to this is that this believer must speak in tongue.
Now, is this biblical?
speaking in tongue is biblical, as it was recorded as one of the practices through the NT, but than to say that one must practice it is also incorrect, speaking in tongue is only one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (as the Apostle Paul says its, a lesser gift), not the Gift (singular).
so when this type of cases comes out, how then should this be dealt with?
the tradition/practice interpret the Scriptues? or the Scripture governs the tradition/practices?
peace. -
i believe in the apostolic tradition and the authority passed down from Peter. am i avoiding ur question? yes!Originally posted by breytonhartge:and did those traditions get adulterated as the church progressed? exactly what traditions were taught?
kidding, actually go to catholic.com and surf around there. should have heaps of info
things that come to mind, infant baptism, confirmation, assumption. i have a book on that,, but its not with me now
-
someone ask me what Martin Luther said about this, and I just quote him only mah....Originally posted by ben1xy:very cheeky ah vince... u add in the alone after u quote the verse. But technically, the word alone was never there in the bible. although Martin luther added the word 'alone' in his translation (or at keast that was what i was taught, i havent actually looked at a protestant bible on this point yet)
-
hey vince! nah... i am not pissed or agitated.. so dun worry!Originally posted by vince69:Ben,
I am not saying all traditions are false, my question is what if it happen that some of these traditions contridict that of Scriptures. And I am not talking only about the Catholic Church, pls do not think for one moment that Protestant Churches do not have questionable church practices/traditions as well.
ok... just for discussion, allow me to take an example:
There are some charismatic/pentacostal churches that insists on believer to be "born again in the spirit" in order to be comfirmed about their salvation, and the way to this is that this believer must speak in tongue.
Now, is this biblical?
speaking in tongue is biblical, as it was recorded as one of the practices through the NT, but than to say that one must practice it is also incorrect, speaking in tongue is only one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (as the Apostle Paul says its, a lesser gift), not the Gift (singular).
so when this type of cases comes out, how then should this be dealt with?
the tradition/practice interpret the Scriptues? or the Scripture governs the tradition/practices?
peace.
hahaa. i will cheat and tell u.. then the MAgeisterium will decide!! (we have 3 pillars! )
i am trying to recall what my parish priest taught me... in that , which one supercedes which 1. i can't recall, but i think it's complementary (dun quote me on that though.. coz i'm not sure) -
sorry .. i nv read properlyOriginally posted by vince69:someone ask me what Martin Luther said about this, and I just quote him only mah.... 
-
Oh! i've also got a question on Mary, is there any evidence in the bible which shows & tells of the accension of Mary Body & Soul into heaven? ThanksOriginally posted by despondent:hey, ben1xy...
u catholic? perhaps u can tell me why catholics believe tat mother mary was considered perfect...is tat true? if true, wheres the basis for tat? -
here, its being covered at the catholic forumOriginally posted by babyys:Oh! i've also got a question on Mary, is there any evidence in the bible which shows & tells of the accension of Mary Body & Soul into heaven? Thanks
http://christians.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=206042 -
i am too lazy to read the front part.
The difference between a catholic and a Protestant
catholics see Jesus's mother as perfect and having the same status as God.
Catholics have more idols and statues.
3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."
So to put it in layman terms...Mary told jesus to change the water to wine. Jesus said i dont listen to you.
To add on, you notice the word woman -
Originally posted by davidche:i am too lazy to read the front part.
The difference between a catholic and a Protestant
catholics see Jesus's mother as perfect and having the same status as God.
Catholics have more idols and statues.
3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."
So to put it in layman terms...Mary told jesus to change the water to wine. Jesus said i dont listen to you.
hmmm... then why then did He (Jesus) perform the miracle of changing the water to wine on the same occasion just a few verse after the ones you quoted?
btw if I am not wrong, this is one og the first, if not the first miracle Jesus performed. -
Originally posted by davidche:
haizz
i am too lazy to read the front part.
The difference between a catholic and a Protestant
catholics see Jesus's mother as perfect and having the same status as God.
Catholics have more idols and statues.
3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
4"Dear [b]woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."
So to put it in layman terms...Mary told jesus to change the water to wine. Jesus said i dont listen to you.
To add on, you notice the word woman
[/b]
so let's see wads wrong here
u're saying that Jesus disrespected his own Mother? once again, Woman in Araimic is a term for a person held in high esteem.
for ur last sentence, why didnt u mention that Jesus did turn the water to wine.
Finally, Mary is not God.
pls find things out properly before u make such irresponsible remarks. these are things that we can do without -
im sure some of the ppl here has experienced this b4. i wanna lend ppl a pencil and that person say 'if you dont lend me youll get bad luck'.
And i wld say to him, 'i lend you not becos im scared of the bad luck that you said, but becos i want to.'
same thing. marry instructed jesus to turn them some wine. And jesus said to her, i change this water into wine not becos you told me to but becos i want to.
add: I want to,... according to my will. -
if that is the case .. we can conclude their relationship is a formal one.Originally posted by ben1xy:u're saying that Jesus disrespected his own Mother? once again, Woman in Araimic is a term for a person held in high esteem.
it is like Jap .. using honorific .. will you call your own mother xx-sama?
If Jesus taught his disciples to pray using "Abba" and not some high esteem term .. we wonder why he addressed his mother using such high esteem term? -
Would u have any ideas why? i don't actuallyOriginally posted by Icemoon:if that is the case .. we can conclude their relationship is a formal one.
it is like Jap .. using honorific .. will you call your own mother xx-sama?
If Jesus taught his disciples to pray using "Abba" and not some high esteem term .. we wonder why he addressed his mother using such high esteem term? -
bible inaccurate?Originally posted by ben1xy:Would u have any ideas why? i don't actually -
hmm, the way Catholics look at the Bible is slightly different from Protestants. so i will refrain from commenting.Originally posted by Icemoon:bible inaccurate?
Anyway, can the Protestant answer this then? -
Abba is normally how a child would address their father in an endearing manner, one of the explaination I had heard of is that Jesus wants us to not just view God as a very distanted figure but also as a loving Father.Originally posted by Icemoon:if that is the case .. we can conclude their relationship is a formal one.
it is like Jap .. using honorific .. will you call your own mother xx-sama?
If Jesus taught his disciples to pray using "Abba" and not some high esteem term .. we wonder why he addressed his mother using such high esteem term?
As to why He addressed His mother using such high esteem term? He is simply honoring her as His mother which is inline with the commandments
*would anyone think that our Lord Jesus who came to fulfills the requirements of the Law would left this out?
Deuteronomy 5:16
"Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you. -
eh, tink we have deviated a little...i wanna noe wad exactly caused the breakaway? i noe catholics n protestants have diff. beliefs on wad caused the breakaway so can u guys clarify? thanx!!!
-
I told you liao .. it is because Catholics practices then were not inline with Scripture.Originally posted by despondent:eh, tink we have deviated a little...i wanna noe wad exactly caused the breakaway? i noe catholics n protestants have diff. beliefs on wad caused the breakaway so can u guys clarify? thanx!!!
Historically, Luther did not wish to break away from the Catholic Church. He was forced to "join Liangshan".
Luther said these words that were since immortalized:Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen
-
I don't think you can back this up.Originally posted by vince69:As to why He addressed His mother using such high esteem term? He is simply honoring her as His mother which is inline with the commandments
Is this authentic Jewish custom?
I can't imagine all the Pharisees calling their mummy ____ (insert the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek equivalent). -
there is clearly a discrepancy between Jesus' action and our understanding of the commandment.
'honor your parents' does not mean using highly esteemed name to address someone personal to you.
it is unimaginable for filial Japanese children to address their mother xx-sama. -
the hebrew word for Honor in Deuteronomy 5:16 have the same meaningOriginally posted by Icemoon:there is clearly a discrepancy between Jesus' action and our understanding of the commandment.
'honor your parents' does not mean using highly esteemed name to address someone personal to you.
it is unimaginable for filial Japanese children to address their mother xx-sama.
honor, glorify.
*me bad... sourced from NIV exhaustive concordance...