Tradition Versus Scripture

[BreadOfLife]

It's good to examine scripture, so lets see what these verses actually say, as opposed to how they have been interpreted.
First of all these scriptures were written by Jews, with a Jewish understanding of scripture, so beginning with Isaiah, these verses say....
"Therefore, Jehovah himself will give you a sign: Look! The young woman will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and she will name him Im·manʹu·el."

A young woman or virgin would give birth to this promised one and he would be called "Immanuel"....was Mary's son named Immanuel? Obviously not because he was always called Jesus (or Yeshua). So what is the meaning of the name Immanuel?..."With us is God". How was God "with" his people in ancient times?....it was by means of the ones he chose to represent him...men like Abraham, Moses, Elijah...and finally, Jesus.

"For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given to us;
And the rulership will rest on his shoulder.
His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

Does calling the promised Messiah "Mighty God" mean that he is the "Almighty" God?
Is he a "father" in the same sense that Jehovah is? A father is a life giver.....and so was Jesus.
Why call a King, a "Prince".....a prince is the son of a king. You have misinterpreted that whole prophesy trying to prop up a lie.

According to Strongs Concordance, the meaning of the word "god" (El) is...

• god, god-like one, mighty one
  
  
  1. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
  2. angels
  3. god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
  4. God, the one true God, Jehovah

So this word does not always refer to Jehovah.

How does Jesus himself explain the use of the word "god" in relation to humans?
In John 10:31-36, he says to the Jews who were trying to pin a charge of blasphemy on him....
“I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against* whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?"
Jesus was referring to judges in Israel whom his Father called "gods" because their position in judging his people was authorized by him.
One who represents the true God can rightly be called a "god" according the meaning of those terms which both the Jews and Christians of the first century understood. The trinity was not a belief held by the first Christians...it was not until the foretold apostasy had overtaken the church that this blasphemous teaching took hold.

So, from a Jewish perspective, rather than a Catholic one, you can see how these verses should be understood.
Both relate to the promised Messiah whom the Jews knew was coming.
They had a slightly different understanding at that point in history, but the "sacred secret" or "mystery" of the Kingdom was not fully revealed until Christ came.

What about John 1:1? Using the same understanding of the term "god" ("theos" in Greek) we again see that interpretation is the problem.
John was not saying that Jesus was Almighty God but that he was a godlike one.
The word "theos" according to Strongs primary definition is...
"a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities."
So again, Jesus is rightly said to be "a god"....a divine being of course, but not God incarnate. The Jews would never have accepted a Messiah who claimed to be God, as that would have given them grounds to execute him for blasphemy....but he had to die as an innocent man.

He is also said to be "with God" "in the beginning"....so we then have to ask...how can Jesus be "with God" if he IS God?
And "what beginning"is this?...because we know that the eternal being that is Jehovah had no beginning....but according to Revelation 3:14, God's son was the "beginning of God's creation".....so Jesus is not God, but has been "with God" since his creation. He is God's "firstborn". (Colossians 1:15)

The woeful misinterpretation of scripture by the church system that began with the RCC and its predecessors, is responsible for the "many" heading for the destruction that Jesus foretold in Matthew 7:13-14. Only a "few" relatively speaking, are on the narrow road to life.

This entire diatribe is a textbook example of the Scriptural acrobatics employed by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The fact that you have to go into such a verbose rant in order to explain a single line of Scripture is an immediate red flag. As to the perversions in the New World Translation – that is an enormous topic for another thread . . . For starters – there only ONE God, and to suggest otherwise is a violation of the First Commandment. This destroys your argument that “El” in Isa. 9:6 can be a reference to a man. An if that isn’t enough to sink that position – I challenge you to show me ONE example of this word being used to describe a man in Scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus is certainly the Head of the church. But your church walked away from Him and trusted in the kings and queens of the earth to enforce her teachings rather than preaching the simple gospel.

REALLY??

Show me that teaching in the Catechism . . .

Obviously. Too obvious, obviously when the scriptures have so much symbolism to portray truths to those who have ears to hear.

Thanks for that NON-answer . . .

She didn't say the tower was built before the flood. That's the kind of stupid conclusion you come to when you read one small passage and ignore everything else she said on the matter. Do you honestly think she would get something so wrong as if she had never read scripture?
The quote you have there said, the system was corrupted before the flood... She is not saying the tower was built then. She wrote a book called Patriarchs and Prophets. I suggest you read it to find the truth of what she really taught and believed and stop blowing hot air.

Then her “facts” are jumbled.

The people – or “system” that existed during the Tower of Babel was NOT the same as that which existed before the Flood.

Two different sets of people.

We aren't allowed to discuss the trinity here. Almighty God is God the Father. Jesus is the Son of God. That's all I'll say.

The Father is God
The Soon is God
The Holy Spirit is God.

The Father is not the Son.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father.
The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
The Holy Spirit is not the Son.

She is right. The atonement was not complete at the cross. The OT sanctuary service should have taught you that, with its types and symbols and feasts. The first feast was Passover, which represented Calvary. After the lamb was slain, the blood was taken into the sanctuary where the priests would minister before the veil. On the day of atonement, the High Priest entered into the Holy of holies and minister a special ritual which typified Christ's mediation in the Holy of holies in heaven. The atonement is not complete without His ministry as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, just as the round of sacrifices and rituals and feasts weren't complete until the Day of Atonement for Israel.

There is no question concerning the deity of Jesus from me. He is every bit as much God as His Father... Except in rank. Everything the Father is, so also is the Son. Everything the Father possessed, including His name, Jehovah, He gave to His Son. Which is what Ellen White was alluding to. Elsewhere she clearly declares Jesus is God. BoL is shooting from the hip with the understanding of a mushroom.

She is wrong.

Paul wrote unequivocally:
Col. 2:13-14
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[d] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Interesting that Protestant historians you agree with are 'renowned', while those who are critical of your church are liars and anti Catholic heretics. Neither of the above training based on actual history, only on your personal animus.
Whatever you Catholic bias toward those you agree with, it still remains a fact that there was no other power in history to grow from Pagan Rome at the time of its abandonment of western Europe other than the papacy. The little horn of Daniel 7 is papal Rome. It can be no other.

WRONG again.
J.N.D. Kelly was a Protestant – whose doctrines I disagreed with.

I don’t disagree with him on everything. And I certainly agree with him onn that which is historically-provable.

 

[Johann]

Ohhh-if Protestants break away from the RCC-THEY are the ones to look out for?

No infant baptism till AD 450:

A. There is no command or example of infant baptism in the Bible.



B. History of infant baptism:

“Baptism: Christian initiation is described for us in a wealth of detail by Egeria, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the late fourth century. In her day initiation was still for adults; only in the mid-fifth century did the practice of baptizing infants imply that few, if any, adults came to be made Christians.

In Egeria's time, when an adult decided to become a Christian, he went with his friends and relations to the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, where they met the bishop in the middle of the nave. When the people supporting the candidate had testified to his good behavior, he was enrolled as a catechumen. A catechumen was obliged to attend daily sessions in the church.

First individual meetings were held with a member of the clergy, who exorcized him or her with prayers for deliverance from sin. Then there was a daily three hour lecture by the bishop, at first in regard to the interpretation of the Bible and then the Christian creed. The catechumen was baptized before the assembly on Easter Day and received Holy Communion with the other members of the congregation. Until this time, the meaning of baptism and the Eucharist could not be revealed to them, and they had to attend more discourses in the week following Easter to learn about those two services. The oldest complete set of lessons to catechumens that is known comes from the pen of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who was bishop of Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth century C.E.” (Christian Worship in the Byzantine Period, John Wilkinson, Ancient Churches Revealed, p17, 1993 AD)



C. The Roman Catholic church admits baptism by immersion was practiced till 1311 AD:

"There is no express mention of the baptism of infants in the New Testament" (Question Box, p. 23).
"It is difficult to give strict proof from the scriptures in favor of it. [infant baptism]" (Catholic Dictionary, p. 61).
"Ecclesiastical custom with regard to the administration of Baptism has undergone a change in the course of history. Whereas the early Church baptized adults only, the baptism of children soon became the usual practice." (Sanford, Alexander E., MD, Pastoral Medicine: Handbook for the Catholic Clergy, 1904, p 32-33)
"Where in the fourth and fifth centuries the doctrine of original sin became better known, the practice of infant baptism progressed rapidly." (Legislation on the Sacraments in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 72).
"When all fear of persecution had passed away, and the empire had become almost entirely Christian, the necessity for a prolonged period of trial and instruction no longer existed, about the same time the fuller teaching on the subject of original sin, occasioned by the Pelagian heresy, gradually led to the administration of baptism of infants." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 78).
Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants in the Council Of Mela in 416 AD.


Infant Baptism is Catholic but Un-biblical



This is a valid baptism by full immersion of a believer. (adult)
(Left)

Not even John Paul II can make right, an infant baptism by sprinkling, that is wrong according to the Bible!
(right)

Infant baptism

Feel free to peruse the link and show me my errors.
J.

 

[Johann]

Oh-"we leave the indulgences aside for a while" Love how he "fumble" for words-not going to Scriptures, but Ignatius.

 

[Aunty Jane]

This entire diatribe is a textbook example of the Scriptural acrobatics employed by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The fact that you have to go into such a verbose rant in order to explain a single line of Scripture is an immediate red flag.

LOL....I'm sorry but the "scriptural acrobatics" employed by the RCC are centuries older than you or I.
I wasn't born into my faith, but went searching for God in my early twenties after balking at what was passed off as "Christianity" in Christendom for quite some time....the fact that it was OK to do what Christ taught....except when justification was needed to ignore him.

Nowhere was this more obvious than when nations went to war. All the churches supported their nation in their side of the war effort and the Catholic church particularly was right at the forefront, blessing weapons that would inevitably take the lives of innocent people, even fellow Catholics at times, and absolving troubled consciences at the front line. The question was then, if Christians were on both sides of the conflict, whose side was God taking? Jesus told them, but they ignored him to curry favor with the world. (Matt 5:43-44; James 4:4)

The fact that I did go into so much detail is because I am a student of the Bible and have been for over 50 years. If you don't know the details of why you hold something to be true, then you are what Paul describes as a 'clashing cymbal'....like a brass object that echoes loudly when struck and makes a harsh, jarring, and discordant noise that repels rather than attracts.

Its a shame your red flags don't alert you to the things that are red flags to God....like idolatry and bloodguilt.

As to the perversions in the New World Translation – that is an enormous topic for another thread . . .

Please...I would welcome such an examination. The NWT was sorely needed because most English translations of the Bible available today are skewed towards the teachings of the church...not the Christ. I would be very happy to go down that rabbit hole with you...

For starters – there only ONE God, and to suggest otherwise is a violation of the First Commandment.
This destroys your argument that “El” in Isa. 9:6 can be a reference to a man. An if that isn’t enough to sink that position – I challenge you to show me ONE example of this word being used to describe a man in Scripture.

According to Strongs Concordance "'ēl" (god) is defined as....

• god, god-like one, mighty one
  
  
  1. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
  2. angels
  3. god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
  4. God, the one true God, Jehovah

So your own argument sinks, especially when I have already demonstrated that the use of the word "god" is made by Jehovah himself, concerning the appointed judges in Israel......Jehovah called those human judges "gods".....

John 10:34-36.....
Jesus G2424 answered G611 them, “Has it not been G1510 written G1125 in your Law G3551: ‘I SAID G3004, YOU ARE GODS G2316’?
“If G1487 he called G3004 them gods G2316, to whom G3739 the word G3056 of God G2316 came G1096 (and the Scripture G1124 cannot G1410 G3756 be nullified G3089), are you saying G3004 of Him whom G3739 the Father G3962 sanctified G37 and sent G649 into the world G2889, ‘You are blaspheming G987,’ because G3754 I said G3004, ‘I am G1510 the Son G5207 of God G2316’?

The Father is God
The Soon is God
The Holy Spirit is God.

The Father is not the Son.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father.
The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
The Holy Spirit is not the Son.

If you have not been indoctrinated with this nonsense then you would read that and laugh at its absurdity.
You have three gods there......"God the Father"...."God the Son"....and "God the Holy Spirit".....three separate entities whom you collectively call "God"...they can talk to one another...be in different places at the same time....have different wills.....and only one prays to the Father. The Father is clearly superior, so how can they be equally "God"?

Jesus never once claimed to be Almighty God and the apostles did not think that Jesus was God incarnate, but always deferred to the son as God's representative on earth.....they worshipped the Father, not the son who was a "god like" one who had full authorization from his Father. (Matt 28:18) If he was God why did he need authority to be "given" him?

 

[Johann]

Oh-"we leave the indulgences aside for a while" Love how he "fumble" for words-not going to Scriptures, but Ignatius.

 

[Brakelite]

Jesus is certainly the Head of the church. But your church walked away from Him and trusted in the kings and queens of the earth to enforce her teachings rather than preaching the simple gospel.

To which was replied...

REALLY??

Show me that teaching in the Catechism

Hilarious.

 

[Johann]

To which was replied...

Hilarious.

Remember-ask them to show you what stands written-if they can prove it from Scriptures-and not the Church fathers and catechisms.

See the appeal to the Church fathers-you, an ex-Catholic should see this immediately.

 

[Illuminator]

Remember-ask them to show you what stands written-if they can prove it from Scriptures-and not the Church fathers and catechisms.

Pitting Church Fathers and catechisms against scripture is a man made tradition.
BTW, that's a good video.

 

[Johann]

Pitting Church Fathers and catechisms against scripture is a man made tradition.
BTW, that's a good video.

A video I don't agree with-and the Church Fathers and catechisms/traditions has superseded the infallible Scriptures.

Here is my question to you-how can a infant not knowing right from wrong-be regenerated and justified by sprinkling of water?

An aside-Scriptures can stand alone without Church Fathers and catechisms with their interpretations.

https://www.proclaimingthegospel.org/file/c89c7874-dd1e-11ec-b565-0614187498c1


An amazing text that refutes the Roman Catholic and Orthodox apologists claim that the church refuted heresy with "tradition" because they found that arguing scripture with the heretics futile, since the heretics also quoted scripture. Here we see as late as 350 AD, the church realized that the word of God, not tradition, was the source of how to "understand the things of God".

Contrary to the claims of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, even after the Nicene creed, the church still used scripture as the primary force against the false doctrine of the Arians!

"Having therefore held this faith from the beginning, and being resolved to hold it to the end in the sight of God and Christ, we say anathema to every heretical and perverted sect, and if any man teaches contrary to the wholesome and right faith of the Scriptures, saying that there is or was time, or space, or age before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema. And if any one say that the Son is a formation like one of the things that are formed, or a birth resembling other births, or a creature like the creatures, and not as the divine Scriptures have affirmed in each passage aforesaid, or teaches or proclaims as the Gospel anything else than what we have received: let him be anathema. For all those things which were written in the divine Scriptures by Prophets and by Apostles we believe and follow truly and with fear." (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Councils, or the Faith of the Easterns, 30)

 

[Brakelite]

Pitting Church Fathers and catechisms against scripture is a man made tradition.
BTW, that's a good video.

The point being made was not a theological or doctrinal issue. It is an historical issue. So challenging me to find it in the catechism or in scripture is a meaningless and a vain attempt to divert the conversation.
The question I will ask is... Did the early Roman bishops, from around the 4th to the 6th centuries on, lead the church into a political union or not?

 

[Brakelite]

The point being made was not a theological or doctrinal issue. It is an historical issue. So challenging me to find it in the catechism or in scripture is a meaningless and a vain attempt to divert the conversation.
The question I will ask is... Did the early Roman bishops, from around the 4th to the 6th centuries on, lead the church into a political union or not?

Because if they did trust in the kings and rulers of the secular world to propagate the doctrines and dogma of faith, instead of trusting in the work of the holy Spirit, then that is... Was... Spiritual adultery. Revelation of very clear that such was the sin of the whore, and such is the sin of the papacy.

 

[The Learner]

No sound, don't do movies

 

[Marymog]

Here is my question to you-how can a infant not knowing right from wrong-be regenerated and justified by sprinkling of water?

Here is my question to you: Where does Scripture say that infants are not to be baptized? After all, you Protestants say that everything that we Christians do must be affirmed by Scripture. So give your Scriptural evidence that infants are NOT to be baptized!!!

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

The point being made was not a theological or doctrinal issue. It is an historical issue. So challenging me to find it in the catechism or in scripture is a meaningless and a vain attempt to divert the conversation.
The question I will ask is... Did the early Roman bishops, from around the 4th to the 6th centuries on, lead the church into a political union or not?

Yes, the Pope(s) during that time did "did lead the church into a political union". Does that change the doctrines/dogma of The Church?

 

[Illuminator]

Here is my question to you: Where does Scripture say that infants are not to be baptized? After all, you Protestants say that everything that we Christians do must be affirmed by Scripture. So give your Scriptural evidence that infants are NOT to be baptized!!!

Curious Mary

There is no such scriptural evidence forbidding baptism of infants. And there is no historical evidence of anyone objecting to infant baptism until AFTER the Protestant Revolt (with the exception of the Waldenians and the Cathari). Luther and Calvin baptized infants, so obviously the ban on infant baptism is a post-reformist invention. It's also a denial or misunderstanding of the doctrine of Original Sin.

To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin

The Church’s teaching on infant baptism flows from the Church’s teachings on original sin and the sacrament of baptism. Click here for an explanation.

www.catholic.com

 

[Illuminator]

Yes, the Pope(s) during that time did "did lead the church into a political union". Does that change the doctrines/dogma of The Church?

I'm still waiting for Brokelight to prove any secular entity had any say in anything the Church formally taught in the 4th -6th centuries that he keeps harping about.

1. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
2. St. Hilarius (461-68)
3. St. Simplicius (468-83)
4. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
5. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
6. Anastasius II (496-98)
7. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
8. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
9. St. John I (523-26)
10. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
11. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
12. John II (533-35)
13. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
14. St. Silverius (536-37)
15. Vigilius (537-55)
16. Pelagius I (556-61)
17. John III (561-74)
18. Benedict I (575-79)
19. Pelagius II (579-90)
20. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
21. Sabinian (604-606)
22. Boniface III (607)
23. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
24. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)

 

[Marymog]

High-quality research work plays a decisive role in the world of science, education, and even in various areas of business and society. Research proposal help you can apply here if you are unable to complete the work yourself.

Are you here to promote your business??????????? If so, leave.

 

[Marymog]

Remember-ask them to show you what stands written-if they can prove it from Scriptures-and not the Church fathers and catechisms.

See the appeal to the Church fathers-you, an ex-Catholic should see this immediately.

Yup, show me what stands written from Scripture that the Protestant reformers can use to support their biblical opinions and I will join them. After all, we KNOW that the Church Fathers (some of whom were taught by the Apostles) are wrong and the men of the 16th century (1,600 years later) are right.

You crack me up Johann....................................................................................