Electing New Pope

[Brakelite]

WRONG.
Isaiah 8:20 It says absoluttely nothing about Sola Scriptura - explicitly or implicitly.
I speaks about "the law and to the testimony".

Here are some examples of the OI "Testimony" from the NT that were as binding oon the Jews as what was written:
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION.
It is not found in the Old Testament.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin).
This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses.
It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exod. 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres.
Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.


NOWHERE does the written Word state that ONLY the wtritten Word is authoritative.

Yet those were written. That's why you could quote them. The testimony of Jesus and the apostles affirmed their validity. Not so with your church's counterfeit Sabbath. Even your own church admits that is solely based on tradition, without any affirming written testimony in scripture supporting it.

 

[Brakelite]

And there you have it, folks . . .
The Sabbath, which POINTED to Jesus – was FUFILLED by Him.

All because Bread of Life says so. Therefore 4000 years of sacred scripture declaring the holiness and sanctity of the 7th day is made null and void on BoLs say so. Or rather because his church says tradition is more important than scripture. Your own church declares that Sunday is a result of tradition, not because scripture teaches it.

 

[Truther]

Soooo, once again – you couldn’t address ANY of the non-Scriptural Protestant terminologies I threw at you.

EPIC FAIL . . .

Yup.
What’s the matter - did you miss 2 Thess. 2:15??

Go back to post #74, where I posted it in pretty BLUE letters . . .

I deal with scriptural terminologies. I will leave the unscriptural terminologies to you and the Roman Catholic Church. You guys are better at that stuff than I am.

 

[Truther]

We were discussing a matter of HISTORY – not Scripture.
That’s WHY the ECFs were cited, Einstein.

Good grief - what frightening ignorance . . .

You believe everything written in history is accurate. How naïve and gullible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not doubt you enjoy trying to belittle others its pretty obvious it is your game and dead people are not mediators.
To each other who are living you cannot pray to a dead person period its a verse the catholics use to justify the action.

That is nonsense about the catholic believing Mary had compassion on the people at the wedding almost the whole doctrine of praying to Mary is built around the idea. You need to learn about the catholics as well.

There is few things they changed that wasn't negative one being owning slaves a few past pope's owned slaves they finally changed their view on it in 1800's..
Just type in Google "changes to catholic doctrine over the years" you will find plenty of changes to its doctrine

I don’t depend on secular sources like Google for my theology – and neither should YOU. Just because something is on the internet DOES NOT make it true. Anyway, YOU made the claim that Catholic doctrine has “changed considerably”. I have asked you FOUR TIMES to provide evidence for this – and you have failed.

So, tell me why a member of the Body of Christ, who has been made perfect in Heaven cannot intercede for you - but a flawed, sinful member on earth CAN – especially when the Bible tells us they CAN (Rev. 5:8).
Do YOU know something God doesn’t??

Show me the BIBLICAL teaching for this – Chapter and Verse.

Finally, as to your obsession with Maru and the Wedding at Cana – it’s YOUR contention that Mary was NOT concerned for the hosts and that she just wanted to “party”.
Show me the Biblical evidence for this. There s not a SINGLE Protestant scholar – no matter HOW anti-Catholic, who would support your asinine idea about Mary.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You believe everything written in history is accurate. How naïve and gullible.

The fact that YOU believe that all history MUST be in the Bible shows just how ignorant and clueless you are.

And you STILL haven't told be how you can reject the Early Church Father whiles staynchly adhering to the Canon of Scripture that THEY compiled and declared.

Interesting . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I deal with scriptural terminologies. I will leave the unscriptural terminologies to you and the Roman Catholic Church. You guys are better at that stuff than I am.

Tell me, Einstein - which "UnScriptural terminologies" are you referroing to in the following verse that I presented?

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an oral statement OR BY a letter from us."

It's really NOT that diifficult . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yet those were written. That's why you could quote them. The testimony of Jesus and the apostles affirmed their validity. Not so with your church's counterfeit Sabbath. Even your own church admits that is solely based on tradition, without any affirming written testimony in scripture supporting it.

WRONG.

These verses are just a sample of the Word of God being passed on ORALLY.
The Oral Tradition was just as important and binding on the Jews as the written.

Remembeer - Jesus did NOT tell His Apostles that WHATEVER they WROTE would be written in Heaven. He DIDN'T say that whoever READS what they WRITE READS Huim.
He saud:
Matt 16:16-19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

I don'y see a SINGLE wotd wbout writing and reading . . .

 

[Truther]

The fact that YOU believe that all history MUST be in the Bible shows just how ignorant and clueless you are.

And you STILL haven't told be how you can reject the Early Church Father whiles staynchly adhering to the Canon of Scripture that THEY compiled and declared.

Interesting . . .

Again, you believe everything in ancient history and modern history is perfectly accurate. You will stake your salvation on it. How gullible and clueless.

 

[Truther]

Tell me, Einstein - which "UnScriptural terminologies" are you referroing to in the following verse that I presented?

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an oral statement OR BY a letter from us."

It's really NOT that diifficult . . .

Who is “us” in the verse?

Is the current pope 2000 years old? Are your Cardinals 2000 years old? Are you 2000 years old?

Do you think that everybody today and in history that claims to be “us” are the original apostles or writers of the NT?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Who is “us” in the verse?
Is the current pope 2000 years old? Are your Cardinals 2000 years old? Are you 2000 years old?
Do you think that everybody today and in history that claims to be “us” are the original apostles or writers of the NT?

Th "US" were the leaders of the Church - the Apostles and Evangelists.
Today, we refer to them as Bishops and Periets.

As to your 2nd question above in RED - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.
It pertains to the Apostles and their successors.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Looks like that Devil Pope Frances is thinking of stepping down, so who is going to be the New Pope ?

 

[amigo de christo]

Looks like that Devil Pope Frances is thinking of stepping down, so who is going to be the New Pope ?

Somehow i dont think thee faith , bread of life or illuminator will write the vactican to put me up to run for POPE .
But someone has clean house

 

[Brakelite]

These verses are just a sample of the Word of God being passed on ORALLY.
The Oral Tradition was just as important and binding on the Jews as the written.

Hello. Are you awake? The only reason you know anything about them is because IT IS WRITTEN.

 

[Truther]

The fact that YOU believe that all history MUST be in the Bible shows just how ignorant and clueless you are.

And you STILL haven't told be how you can reject the Early Church Father whiles staynchly adhering to the Canon of Scripture that THEY compiled and declared.

Interesting . . .

Those writings were from post apostolic fraudulent teachers

 

[Truther]

You and your Roman Catholic cronies are not the “us” in the passage. You guys came later to destroy the church of the book of Acts. Great job fella.

 

[Truther]

Th "US" were the leaders of the Church - the Apostles and Evangelists.
Today, we refer to them as Bishops and Periets.

As to your 2nd question above in RED - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.
It pertains to the Apostles and their successors.

I see what you guys believe. You think the latter day Saints apostles and all the other religious apostles from all the other institutions can consider themselves the “us “ per the verse.

Sounds like a bait and switch system to me.

 

[BeyondET]

I don’t depend on secular sources like Google for my theology – and neither should YOU. Just because something is on the internet DOES NOT make it true. Anyway, YOU made the claim that Catholic doctrine has “changed considerably”. I have asked you FOUR TIMES to provide evidence for this – and you have failed.

So, tell me why a member of the Body of Christ, who has been made perfect in Heaven cannot intercede for you - but a flawed, sinful member on earth CAN – especially when the Bible tells us they CAN (Rev. 5:8).
Do YOU know something God doesn’t??

Show me the BIBLICAL teaching for this – Chapter and Verse.

Finally, as to your obsession with Maru and the Wedding at Cana – it’s YOUR contention that Mary was NOT concerned for the hosts and that she just wanted to “party”.
Show me the Biblical evidence for this. There s not a SINGLE Protestant scholar – no matter HOW anti-Catholic, who would support your asinine idea about Mary.

We may not agree on things, but that's ok

 

[Illuminator]

You and your Roman Catholic cronies are not the “us” in the passage. You guys came later to destroy the church of the book of Acts. Great job fella.

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s, “I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”

Was the Early Church Local and Congregational?

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes, “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.” Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans, “be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”

This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes, “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”

Authority of the First Popes - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hello. Are you awake? The only reason you know anything about them is because IT IS WRITTEN.

Ummmm, are YOU awake?

Like I said - those were a small sample of the Oral Tradition. of the Jews.
These verses don't encapsulate the ENTIRE Oral Tradition.