There is only one true church

[PinSeeker]

What you're doing is called eisegesis, which is reading into the text what you want it to mean. It's the opposite of exegesis, which good Bible scholars use. Exegesis is drawing out of the text what it actually means.

What do you call it when one reads out of something what is he doesn't want it to mean, Augustin? Ah, well, 'eisegesis' fits there, too, of course... the expression of an interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text. That's what you're doing, my friend. Maybe the issue is who these "good Bible scholars" are, who you, in this case, think they are.

Mark 6:3 refers to the same "brothers" of Jesus as the children of another Mary, not the mother of Jesus.

I know well your opinion, as you and others here have made very clear, but thanks anyway.

...the Greek word for brother is sometimes used to mean something other than sibling...

I have affirmed this repeatedly...

....it proves that Matthew 13:55-56 in no way demonstrates that Mary had other children.

Disagree, of course. I say that Mary ~ and Joseph ~ knew well God's call to them as husband and wife to be fruitful and multiply, and that they did, as Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 (below) attest. <smile>

"(Jesus) went away from there and came to His hometown (Nazareth), and His disciples followed him. And on the Sabbath He began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to Him? How are such mighty works done by His hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at Him. And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” And He could do no mighty work there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. And He marveled because of their unbelief. And He went about among the villages teaching."​

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Only God can open your eyes to His Word . . .

Hmmm, well, true, and yours also.

The Catholic Church that has existed since the Apostles.

Ah, a very Pharisaical statement... <smile> Catholicism is not the only denomination that claims exclusivity, for sure.

...your sect . . .

Hmmmm... <smile> If that's how you characterize (universally) all those who are in Christ ~ which has been the case since shortly after the Fall of Genesis 3 ~ then, okay. <smile>

Jesus IS the fulfillment of what the Ark carried.

Right, well, of all of Scripture, right? Jesus is the Word, Who, from the beginning, was the Word, and with God, and was God. (John 1:1)

NEITHER of these passage ever implies that “everything” in Scripture s directly about Jesus.

Not necessarily directly, no. <smile> I never said otherwise. <smile>

PinSeeker: the Ark of the Covanant was in no way indicative of Mary.​

Then you’ll have to refute all of the Scriptural type and fulfillment comparisons I presented to the contrary . . .

LOL! No, I said all that was necessary... <smile>

Yet, you reject the Word of God that Paul penned with regard to redemptive suffering for the sake of the Body of Christ (Col. 1:24) . . .

No, I reject at least one of the inferences you draw from what Paul "penned" there. <smile>

We ARE His servants.

That we are. As was Mary, which was my point.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Augustin56]

What do you call it when one reads out of something what is he doesn't want it to mean, Augustin? Ah, well, 'eisegesis' fits there, too, of course... the expression of an interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text. That's what you're doing, my friend. Maybe the issue is who these "good Bible scholars" are, who you, in this case, think they are.


I know well your opinion, as you and others here have made very clear, but thanks anyway.


I have affirmed this repeatedly...


Disagree, of course. I say that Mary ~ and Joseph ~ knew well God's call to them as husband and wife to be fruitful and multiply, and that they did, as Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 (below) attest. <smile>

"(Jesus) went away from there and came to His hometown (Nazareth), and His disciples followed him. And on the Sabbath He began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to Him? How are such mighty works done by His hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at Him. And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” And He could do no mighty work there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. And He marveled because of their unbelief. And He went about among the villages teaching."​

Grace and peace to you.

Again, with regard to Matthew 13:55, the ones you are thinking are blood brothers of Jesus, James and Joseph, are proven to be sons of a different Mary, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, a very Pharisaical statement... <smile> Catholicism is not the only denomination that claims exclusivity, for sure.

Not Pharisaical - it’s just a fact.

Hmmmm... <smile> If that's how you characterize (universally) all those who are in Christ ~ which has been the case since shortly after the Fall of Genesis 3 ~ then, okay. <smile>

Again – I was merely stating a fact. I harbor NO animosity towards my separated Protestant brethren.

Right, well, of all of Scripture, right? Jesus is the Word, Who, from the beginning, was the Word, and with God, and was God. (John 1:1)

As Paul teaches in 2 Thess. 2:15 – NOT all of God’s Word is encapsulated un Scripture alone . . .

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."

Not necessarily directly, no. <smile> I never said otherwise. <smile>

Then, why are you arguing against my statement that some types are indirectly connected to Jesus??

LOL! No, I said all that was necessary... <smile>

As I stated before - a thousand denials don’t amount to a SINGLE fact . . .

No, I reject at least one of the inferences you draw from what Paul "penned" there. <smile>

Hmmm . . .
So, what part of what Paul said in 2 Thess. 2:15 do you disagree with?

That we are. As was Mary, which was my point.

Grace and peace to you.

HOW did Mary serve?

By cooperating with the will of God (Luke 1:38).

 

[PinSeeker]

Again, with regard to Matthew 13:55, the ones you are thinking are blood brothers of Jesus, James and Joseph, are proven to be sons of a different Mary, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

I appreciate your... tenacity... Augustin, but that's very much incorrect. It should be helpful to include verses 53, 54, and 56 with verse 55, as it is all part of the same passage, but even verse 55 alone is sufficient:

"(53) And when Jesus had finished these parables, He went away from there, (54) and coming to His (Jesus's) hometown (Nazareth) He (Jesus) taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, 'Where did this Man (Jesus) get this wisdom and these mighty works? (55) Is not this the carpenter’s (Joseph's) son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His (Jesus's) brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (56) And are not all his sisters (Jesus's) with us?'"​

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

Yes, there were many women there, but... Even the highlighted portion here corresponds to Matthew 13:55(c) above.

Grace and peace to you, Augustin.

 

[RedFan]

Jesus gave supreme earthly Authority to His CHURCH. The Church is His mouthpiece on earth.

He told the leaders of His Church:
Matt 16:19 / Matt. 18:18
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."

This is how Paul was able to say – with God-given Authority:
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."

Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit claimed that ORAL Tradition was on even par with Scripture.
That said - if you reject Apostolic Tradition – ANY of it – you are rejecting God’s Word . . .

Two things. First, what the Thessalonians were told orally or in writing (and neither one of us have any idea whether the perpetual virginity of Mary was included) may be far from what the RCC now teaches as apostolic tradition. That's not to say the RCC is wrong. (A different subject.) But it IS to say that 2 Thess. 2:15 is no support for the RCC's being right about everything. So don't extrapolate. A telling B to hold fast to what B was taught tells us nothing about anything that B wasn't taught. Is apostolic tradition a valid source of truth? Absolutely! Is 2 Thess. 2:13 a proof text for that? Absolutely NOT!

Second, apostolic tradition is simply not well attested on many things, and there is accordingly ambiguity in what was handed down from the original followers of Christ.

 

[Triumph1300]

The Church began on the day of Pentecost after Christ's resurrection.

Exactly.

 

[PinSeeker]

Not Pharisaical - it’s just a fact.

Disagree, of course, on both counts. <smile>

As Paul teaches in 2 Thess. 2:15 – NOT all of God’s Word is encapsulated un Scripture alone . . .

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."

We discussed this; he's not there proposing or stating that anything beyond Scripture is the Word of God... or that they have taught anything beyond the Word of God.

...why are you arguing against my statement that some types are indirectly connected to Jesus??

Because the types and shadows are not "indirectly connected to Jesus" but are Jesus, representative of Him in different ways, give us pictures of Him in various ways.

As I stated before - a thousand denials don’t amount to a SINGLE fact . . .

Well, I agree with that statement on its face, but-tuhhh... <smile>

So, what part of what Paul said in 2 Thess. 2:15 do you disagree with?

None of it, of course. I disagree, BOL, with your misappropriation/misapplication of it.

HOW did Mary serve?

In a lot of ways, great and small, throughout her life, I'm sure. God chose her to give birth to and be the mother of the Lord... I mean, all mothers are called similarly, to serve the Lord as mothers of boys and girls whom He creates, whom He knits together in their mother's womb, who are fearfully and wonderfully made, but no other situation even compares to hers. Can you imagine giving birth and then also worshiping Him ~ even at His birth ~ as the King of kings and Lord of lords that Jesus was?

By cooperating with the will of God (Luke 1:38).

That's certainly one, although the will of God is the will of God; nothing can thwart His purposes, and the Word of the Lord never returns to Him empty, but always accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent. Do you think God's will depended on Mary's cooperating? Her "letting Him have His way" or... giving Him permission? I should hope not...

Grace and peace to you

 

[Augustin56]

I appreciate your... tenacity... Augustin, but that's very much incorrect. It should be helpful to include verses 53, 54, and 56 with verse 55, as it is all part of the same passage, but even verse 55 alone is sufficient:

"(53) And when Jesus had finished these parables, He went away from there, (54) and coming to His (Jesus's) hometown (Nazareth) He (Jesus) taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, 'Where did this Man (Jesus) get this wisdom and these mighty works? (55) Is not this the carpenter’s (Joseph's) son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His (Jesus's) brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (56) And are not all his sisters (Jesus's) with us?'"​

Yes, there were many women there, but... Even the highlighted portion here corresponds to Matthew 13:55(c) above.

Grace and peace to you, Augustin.

Sorry, PinSeeker, but I didn't make the connections for you. Let me try again...

If James and Joseph where blood siblings of Jesus, and therefore sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus, as you claim in verse 55, then they could not have been the sons of of a different Mary as pointed out in Matt 27:56.

The Bible, properly interpreted, has no contradictions within it. You can't have it both ways. You can't interpret Matt. 13:55 to say James and Joseph were sons of Mary the mother of Jesus AND have James and Joseph be the sons of a different Mary (NOT the mother of Jesus) in Matt. 27:56. To make BOTH verses be true and accurate, one must interperet "brothers" to mean cousins or close relatives in Matt. 13:55.

Does that help?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Two things. First, what the Thessalonians were told orally or in writing (and neither one of us have any idea whether the perpetual virginity of Mary was included) may be far from what the RCC now teaches as apostolic tradition. That's not to say the RCC is wrong. (A different subject.) But it IS to say that 2 Thess. 2:15 is no support for the RCC's being right about everything. So don't extrapolate. A telling B to hold fast to what B was taught tells us nothing about anything that B wasn't taught. Is apostolic tradition a valid source of truth? Absolutely! Is 2 Thess. 2:13 a proof text for that? Absolutely NOT!

Second, apostolic tradition is simply not well attested on many things, and there is accordingly ambiguity in what was handed down from the original followers of Christ.

FIRST of all – Sacred Tradition wasn’t OLNY written about to the Thessalonians . . .

2 Tim. 2:2
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

1 Tim. 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.


Secondary – to reject Sacred Tradition is to reject not only the Word of God – but the God-given Authority that Jesus gave His Church:

Matt 16:19, Matt. 18:15
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."

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Where – in ANY of these passages does it day to distrust the Church and believe ONLY that which was written down. Anyway, with the New Testament – you’re STILL believing in a Sacred Tradition because it was written down by the Church.

The Canon of the New Testament was declared by the Catholic Church in the 4th century and is adhered to by ALL Christians . . .

 

[PinSeeker]

Sorry, PinSeeker, but I didn't make the connections for you. Let me try again...

No apologies necessary, Augustin. Ah... connections... yes... <chuckles>

If James and Joseph where blood siblings of Jesus, and therefore sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus, as you claim in verse 55, then they could not have been the sons of a different Mary as pointed out in Matt 27:56.

I'm well aware of what your "connection" was and is. Again, I appreciate your opinion, but obviously strongly disagree. That you think the Mary in Matthew 27:56 is a different Mary is precisely the issue.

The Bible, properly interpreted, has no contradictions within it.

This I agree with, of course.

You can't have it both ways.

If the two "ways" were truly in opposition to each other, I would agree, but... <smile>

You can't interpret Matt. 13:55 to say James and Joseph were sons of Mary the mother of Jesus AND have James and Joseph be the sons of a different Mary (NOT the mother of Jesus) in Matt. 27:56.

I agree. I'm... not doing that, Augustin. <smile>

To make BOTH verses be true and accurate, one must interperet "brothers" to mean cousins or close relatives in Matt. 13:55.

Or... <smile> There is another possibility... <smile>

In both verses, Augustin, as I intimated above, the very same Mary is in view... the mother Mary of Jesus and His brothers James and John (and Simon and Judas and his sisters, of course).

Does that help?

<chuckles>

Let me ask you, Augustin. In your view, Matthew 27:55, how many women are mentioned in that one verse? You may actually see that as I do, but yes, following "...among whom were..." in that verse. How many women do you think are mentioned there? Now, depending on your answer to this question, I may have either a follow-up question and/or a comment.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Disagree, of course, on both counts. <smile>

Then you disagree with history.

We discussed this; he's not there proposing or stating that anything beyond Scripture is the Word of God... or that they have taught anything beyond the Word of God.

He absolutely is.
"... either by an oral statement - OR by a Letter from us ..." (2 Thess. 2:15).

Why do you believe the New Testament is the Word of God? It was compiled and declared Canon by the Catholic Church in 383 AD.

The NT Canon is in effect, a Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Because the types and shadows are not "indirectly connected to Jesus" but are Jesus, representative of Him in different ways, give us pictures of Him in various ways.

YOU yourself admitted that the prophecy of the Woman in Rev. 12:1 wasn’t “All” about Jesus. It definitely about Him . . .

None of it, of course. I disagree, BOL, with your misappropriation/misapplication of it.

Okay – so, WHAT part of was a “misappropriation/misapplication”?

In a lot of ways, great and small, throughout her life, I'm sure. God chose her to give birth to and be the mother of the Lord... I mean, all mothers are called similarly, to serve the Lord as mothers of boys and girls whom He creates, whom He knits together in their mother's womb, who are fearfully and wonderfully made, but no other situation even compares to hers. Can you imagine giving birth and then also worshiping Him ~ even at His birth ~ as the King of kings and Lord of lords that Jesus was?

That's certainly one, although the will of God is the will of God; nothing can thwart His purposes, and the Word of the Lord never returns to Him empty, but always accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent. Do you think God's will depended on Mary's cooperating? Her "letting Him have His way" or... giving Him permission? I should hope not...

Grace and peace to you

The will of God is NOT always followed.

1 Tim. 2:4 tells us that God wills the salvation of ALL men and that they ALL to come to a knowledge of the truth. Will ALL be saved? According to Jesus, there are MANY who will choose the broad path that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14) . . .

We are ALL called to be co-workers (sunergos) with God. by cooperating with His grace, which is a gift that CAN be rejected.

 

[PinSeeker]

Then you disagree with history.

No... <chuckles> The Roman Catholic Church's claim of exclusivity is historical, for sure, but history is chock-full of... bad things... <smile>

He absolutely is.

I well understand your opinion. We disagree. It's okay. <smile>

Why do you believe the New Testament is the Word of God?

Wow. Why do you not?

The NT Canon is in effect, a Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Hmmm, I see. I strongly disagree, of course, but yeah, I... um... see. I think... <smile>

So, BOL, do you think the New Testament is the Word of the Catholic Church?

I would say that certainly, the one holy, catholic (small 'c'), apostolic church has its beginnings in the first century A.D., but... <smile>

YOU yourself admitted that the prophecy of the Woman in Rev. 12:1 wasn’t “All” about Jesus.

You'll have to remind me how that came up and what I actually said, BOL. I mean, you don't have to, of course, but... I know that one thing I have said is that all of Scripture is about Jesus in one way or another, so that would include Revelation 12... Not sure exactly what you mean with this statement; all your bolding and capitalizing is (frankly) a bit irritating, but in this case your capitalizing and bolding of and scare quotes around 'all' is... well, confusing. We can talk particularly about Revelation 12 if you want, but I would suggest we break that off as a side conversation of its own.

It definitely about Him . . .

Well, as I said above, all of Scripture is about Jesus in one way or another...

Okay – so, WHAT part of was a “misappropriation/misapplication”?

I BELIEVE I've been very CLEAR. See what I did there? <smile>

The will of God is NOT always followed.

Humanly speaking, no; I agree. <smile>

1 Tim. 2:4 tells us that God wills the salvation of ALL men and that they ALL to come to a knowledge of the truth.

He desires this, BOL. There's quite a difference between His will and His desire(s). Even humanly speaking, we sometimes will contrary to our desire; it is certainly possible to desire something, even intensely, but decide against that desire for one reason or another.

Will ALL be saved? According to Jesus, there are MANY who will choose the broad path that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14) . . .

Right, so, building on your previous statement that "God wills the salvation of all men" and coupling that with your insinuation here that not all will be saved, would you then, as a result, say that God fails at least sometimes to execute His will? Or that God executing His will with regard to salvation depends on man's choosing? Answering 'yes' to either question here would be... unwise... <smile>

We are ALL called to be co-workers (sunergos) with God...

Ugh. <smile> To be honest, I'm not quite sure what it really means to you for us to be "co-workers with God." <smile> That may be something else for another side conversation. <smile>

Certainly, as Christians, we are called to be instruments of His strong Right Hand, proclaiming the excellencies of Him Who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9), exhorted to offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God (Paul, Romans 12:2) and to be doers of the word, and not hearers only (James 1:22)...

...by cooperating with His grace, which is a gift that CAN be rejected.

God gives grace to all in one way or another, whether they know it or acknowledge it ~ or even "cooperate" (whatever you mean by that...) with it ~ or not. This is what we call common grace, meaning common to, given to, all men.

But not all ~ as you agree, it seems ~ receive the grace of salvation; this grace is what we call particular grace, meaning it is given to only those whom God chooses to give it, His elect, a subset of all men who receive His mercy and compassion, which He gives only to some/many ~ "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18) ~ despite the fact that no one is deserving, and quite the opposite, that all are absolutely undeserving of this grace and fully deserving of the opposite.

In any/either case, though, BreadOfLife, generally speaking, grace, by definition, is unmerited favor, and God gives it in various ways and degrees based solely on His will and according to His glory. As Paul says, God, in desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience those not of Israel, not among His elect, in order to make known the riches of his glory for those of Israel, His elect, all those He calls not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles (Romans 9:22-24). But to say ~ as you seem to be suggesting ~ that we merit His grace in some way by "cooperation" ~ especially with regard to His great salvation ~ then such is to make grace out to be something other than grace entirely, which is exactly what Paul says in Romans 11:5-6, that "there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

Again, I suggest we get back to the one or two specific things we were talking about... or break this off here and now.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[RedFan]

Where – in ANY of these passages does it day to distrust the Church and believe ONLY that which was written down.

Nowhere! That's why I said on Post # 666

Is apostolic tradition a valid source of truth? Absolutely!

 

[PinSeeker]

RedFan said: Is apostolic tradition a valid source of truth? Absolutely!​

Absolutely. But I would say "apostolic tradition" only as reflected in Scripture (God's Word).

Hey, anybody ~ even the Pope and/or the Catholic Church <smile> ~ can say/write true things... At least from time to time... <smile>

And, one thing to be very aware of is that people ~ ever since the age of the apostles ~ can be mistaken regarding that Scriptural apostolic tradition... as has been displayed many times over in this forum. <smile>

Only God (all three Persons of the triune Jehovah, of course) and His Word (personified by the Lord Jesus Christ, of course) is/are infallible and inerrant and without flaw.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No... <chuckles> The Roman Catholic Church's claim of exclusivity is historical, for sure, but history is chock-full of... bad things... <smile>

First of all – it’s the “Catholic Church” – not the “Roman” Catholic Church.

Secondly, whether history is full of “bad things” or not – the Catholic Church can trace irself back to the Apostles – and we have the paper trail to prove it.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch - who was a lifelong student of the Apostle John wrote the following while John was presumable still alive.

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Gee - what Church off today does that sound like?

I well understand your opinion. We disagree. It's okay. <smile>

So, if Paul didn’t put Sacred Tradition on even par with Scripture in 2 Thess. 2:15 – what did he mean here?

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."

You can only dance around this issue for so long before you finally have to address it . . .

Wow. Why do you not?

I absolutely DO.

I do because I trust in God and His Church, to whom He gave supreme earthly Authority to speak for Him on earth and it would be ordained in Heaven (Matt. 15:18-18, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16). The SAME Church, to whom He guaranteed the Holy Spirit’s guidance to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

Hmmm, I see. I strongly disagree, of course, but yeah, I... um... see. I think... <smile>

So, BOL, do you think the New Testament is the Word of the Catholic Church?

I would say that certainly, the one holy, catholic (small 'c'), apostolic church has its beginnings in the first century A.D., but... <smile>

NO.

It’s the Word of God. But the Word of God is presented through His Church.
His Church is His mouthpiece on earth.

As for small “c” catholic – the title of the Church has been the “Catholic Church” since the first century.

You'll have to remind me how that came up and what I actually said, BOL. I mean, you don't have to, of course, but... I know that one thing I have said is that all of Scripture is about Jesus in one way or another, so that would include Revelation 12... Not sure exactly what you mean with this statement; all your bolding and capitalizing is (frankly) a bit irritating, but in this case your capitalizing and bolding of and scare quotes around 'all' is... well, confusing. We can talk particularly about Revelation 12 if you want, but I would suggest we break that off as a side conversation of its own.

All Scripture IS about Jesus – directly or indirectly.
But - YOU keep saying that it is DIRECTLY about Jesus.

As for my choice of text formatting – this usually comes up when my opponent is at a loss . . .

I BELIEVE I've been very CLEAR. See what I did there? <smile>

Interesting how you keep dancing around 2 Thess. 2:15.

I can certainly understand how uncomfortable that passage can make a Protestant feel . . . .

Humanly speaking, no; I agree. <smile>

In any kind of speaking.

He desires this, BOL. There's quite a difference between His will and His desire(s). Even humanly speaking, we sometimes will contrary to our desire; it is certainly possible to desire something, even intensely, but decide against that desire for one reason or another.

Uhhh, no.

The Greek word used here in 1 Tim. 2:4 is τηελο – which is defined as:
1) to will, have in mind, intend
1a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose

God WILL the salvation of all. Unfortunately - NOT all will cooperate . . .

Right, so, building on your previous statement that "God wills the salvation of all men" and coupling that with your insinuation here that not all will be saved, would you then, as a result, say that God fails at least sometimes to execute His will? Or that God executing His will with regard to salvation depends on man's choosing? Answering 'yes' to either question here would be... unwise... <smile>

Not, it wouldn’t – unless you’re a strict Calvinist.

And, no – God never fails.
It's MAN who fails God.

Ugh. <smile> To be honest, I'm not quite sure what it really means to you for us to be "co-workers with God." <smile> That may be something else for another side conversation. <smile>

Certainly, as Christians, we are called to be instruments of His strong Right Hand, proclaiming the excellencies of Him Who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9), exhorted to offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God (Paul, Romans 12:2) and to be doers of the word, and not hearers only (James 1:22)...

That’s pretty much what I meant.

“Co” doesn’t mean “equal partner”. In Latin, the prefix that is “co” is “cum”, which siply means “with”. It is in this sense that Mary is looked upon as “Co-Redemptrix”. This is what Paul was talking about in Col. 1:24.

Again, I suggest we get back to the one or two specific things we were talking about... or break this off here and now.

Grace and peace to you.

We can get back to whichever subject you want.

However, if you believe that grace is something we can’t resist or reject – I think you are at odds with Scripture.
God doesn’t drag anybody, kicking and screaming into Heaven against their will. We have a free will

Like any gift - it requires our cooperation . . .

 

[RedFan]

So, if Paul didn’t put Sacred Tradition on even par with Scripture in 2 Thess. 2:15 – what did he mean here?

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."

You can only dance around this issue for so long before you finally have to address it . . .

I addressed it in Post #666. Paul meant exactly what he said to the Thessalonians: to consider both the written and the oral teachings they had been provided as something to hold fast to. We don't have much of a clue what those oral traditions were, nor who besides Paul transmitted them. As to the written letters, certainly First Thessalonians, and MAYBE copies of letters Paul had previously written to neighboring churches. Paul tells the Thessalonians nothing regarding letters by others (James, Peter, etc.) or about any of the four canonical gospels -- none of which gospels had yet been written (Mark seems to have been the oldest) when Paul wrote Second Thessalonians, which consensus scholarship puts as written by Paul around 50-51 C.E.

I want to be clear on my position, because you've missed it before and painted me as disagreeing with your championing of apostolic tradition. I AM NOT REJECTING APOSTOLIC TRADITION! Oral tradition counts greatly, and we can certainly hope that it has been largely preserved with tolerable faithfulness over the centuries. If so (something I believe but cannot prove), I'd put it on an even par with Paul's (and others') letters and with the gospels. I have reasons for thinking this. But 2 Thess. 2:15 -- which doesn't mention "Scripture" (your word), but only Paul's own letters, whichever ones they might have been -- isn't one of them.

You've put forth a terrible "proof text" for a defensible proposition. WHY? No need to grasp at straws when steel beams are available!

 

[Hobie]

Tradition is not truth, need to see that..

Not once has the Catholic Church rejected Christ's truth. They follow Holy Tradition which is the Oral tradition (teachings) of Christ that St. Paul refers to in 2 Thes 2:15. Without the Catholic Church, you have no Bible or teachings of Christ. Protestantism, with it's man-made traditions of Bible alone and faith alone and personal translation of Scripture (which is against Scripture) cannot be the source of Christ's truth came in the 16th century, way late in the game. Where would they have gotten "different" information from what was always taught from the beginning?

Or are you Mormon and claim that an angel came back to correct some of the teachings? That's looney toons, too.

 

[RedFan]

Tradition is not truth, need to see that..

Tradition can be truth, but only if faithful to original teaching by authoritative teachers.

 

[Hobie]

Tradition can be truth, but only if faithful to original teaching by authoritative teachers.

But as you can see, it was from pagan origin, not faithful or original teaching to say the least..