205 You think that all revelation of God was written down.
Nope. (Mebbe that's your 1st mistake.) If u rilly think i do: would u care to show me which of my words make u think so? Thanx
You also think that Tradition is a separate form of revelation.
Rite after this u wrote: "2 different media or forms." Why, dear sir A, blame me for what u yourself believe? All i asked, in my post 199, 5th para, was: WHAT 'traditions'? Care to specify even 1? Half a one?
all revelation but he chooses to do so under 2 different media or forms. 1)Scripture and 2)Tradition. Both are the word of God and both are binding on us.
Thank Dios a) personal revelation to one is in One form: By the Spirit. In one's personal, own, human spirit (Eph 3:5; 1:17; 1 Cor 2:4, 10-3:1; Mt 22:43; 16:17). This is the same essence as Scripture (2 Tim 3:16; 1 P 1:10-12). Because God made us with a spirit (Gen 2:7; Job 32:8; Zech 12:1; 1 Thes 5:23; Heb 4:12). God is Spirit (Jn 4:24). And the last Adam, Jesus Christ, consummately became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17; Jn 7:37-39; 14:3, 17, 23; 1 Jn 3:24; Rv 5:6). To breathe Himself into any and all who believe into His name (Jn 20:22). Thus making them members of His Body and one spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17; Rm 8:10, 16; Jn 3:6). Ontologically and eternally. For Him then to saturate their soul and body (Rm 8:6, 11, 13, 19, 23). Thus transforming and conforming us into His own image (2 Cor 3:18). Fulfilling, ultimately, as the 4th cent. Athanasius said: God became man to make man God (in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead).
And also thank God that b) nonscriptural, and especially antiapostolic, religious, and nongodly tradition and Tradition is not binding on anyone whose ever lived or ever will live. 'Specially not on me (thank the Lord)
Again I point you to (2 Thess 2:15) to clearly see this.
Thanx, graciously. Again, i graciously and kindly point u to my post 199 which dealt with your, or your teachers', apparent misuses of 2 Thes 2:15; 1 Thes 2:13. Furthermore, my offer in 199 and above still ever stands: Care to specify any tradition(s) you're speaking of? For ease of discussion or debate?
Thanx
One cannot contradict the other but both come from the apostles teaching that was handed on to the next generation of Christians.
To the contrary: any tradition that contradicts the Scripture is best to throw in the garbage. Where it belongs and belonged from the start
Your mistake is to wrongly believe that every tradition that the aposltes taught is written down.
Your mistake, based on your comment, i'd say is to believe that the apostles or God Xcluded any significant tradition or teaching of theirs from the New Testament, Scripture. In any case, traditions you're thinking of ARE written down. Somewhere. Just not in Scripture. So, effectively, it looks to appear you are saying, like Mormons do (for instance), dear friend, that: you're simply adding other writings to what we both agree is Scripture. Or r u saying that your 'traditions' r nowhere written down? R merely oral tales in the air, or kept in certain persons' memories (kind of like some Native American traditions)? Last of all, in any case: Care to specify any tradition you have in mind? How bout jus one?
Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth(orally spoken not written) or by letter of ours(written epistles or scripture).
Az mentioned above: Paul did not only write to the Thessalonians. Nor was he the only author in and of the New Testament. In fact, he wrote 12 other letters. In any case: What nonbible traditions would u like to give me? (U can be assured, both personally and for purposes of any debate of ours, i'd compare them with what the apostles actually taught. Thanx)
What passage in the Bible says that ALL the tradtions Paul spoke were written down in the bible? Not one!!
Is that why u wrote, in 198: "scripture itself contains all that is needed to do proper theology and bring someone to Christ and his truth"?
So if you judge the view you hold(that all Pauls traditions were written in scripture) by scripture itself, it simply refutes itself.
To contrary, it duzn't in the least. Since, matching your comment above: "all Scripture's God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete (complete), fully equipped (fully equipped) for every good work. This is the same principle as the OT Scriptures: ...from a babe you've known the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through the faith which's in Christ Jesus (2 Tim 3:15-17). Paul also wrote: to Him who's able to establish you according to my gospel, that is, the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which's been kept in silence in the times of the ages but now's been manifested, and through the prophetic writings, according to the command of the eternal God,'s been made known to all the Gentiles for the obdience of faith (Rm 16:25-26). Paul also wrote to the Colossians that it was "given to me for you to complete the word of God...(Col 1:25). Which he did. John and Peter's later writings only confirming and amplifying and transmitting the identical essence. Paul's letters are Scripture. Like Peter recognized and stated a long time before 382 AD (2 P 3:15-16). R u saying, or implying, dear sir and mr. friend A: that you or your Catholic Church has MORE writings, letters, or teachings of Paul?
Then pray-tell: What are they? That your pope's infallible? That i should worship or venerate statues? Can you see how heinous, evil, and self-serving that is (Mt 13:33; Rev 2:20-24)? Thanks
So there is a historical black mark for the protestant on this issue.
State-churches, Catholicism, and Protestantism, r all "black marks." As Christ says: Come out of her [and her daughters] My people (Rv 17:5; 18:4, 20; 2:22-23)
St Peter(Our first Pope historically) would dissagree with you.
i, and Peter, and Christ, and God, and His Spirit, disagree, and would disagree, that he was, or is, a "pope" (Mt 23:9; 16:15-18; Eph 2:19-22; 1:17-18; 3:5; 1 P 2:4-8; 1 Cor 3:10-23; Jn 20:31; Rv 2:17; 3:12; 21:11-21; Genesis 2:10-12)
If all scripture was so easy to understand and if it could interpet itself and be easily understood by all christians and prospective converts who were just untaught, then Peters message would be in vain.
Thanks. That shouldn't be an excuse to either misteach or deviate from it
As a matter of fact in the bible we see that, not only do we need the scriptures and tradition , but we also need a Authoritative interpeter or teacher to show us the proper meaning of scripture and tradition(In the Latin this word for teaching Authority=Magisterium).
Az matter o' fact, in the Bible we see that we need not only the Scriptures (Mt 4:4; 2 Tim 3:15-16); but we need their one, unique, primary, ultimate, authoritative interpreter (2 Tim 3:16; 1 P 1:12). Who is not Jezebel, or any other self-appointed, self-aggrandizing institution or false prophet (Mt 13:33; Rv 2:6, 14-15, 20). But is the very Inspirer of Scripture: the Spirit (1 P 1:10-12; 2 Tim 3:16; Rv 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:1, 6, 13, 22). Who is the consummation of the embodied and processed Triune God (Rv 1:4-8; 2:1, 7; Jn 1:1, 14; Col 2:9; 1 Cor 15:45; Gal 4:4-6; Rv 16-21). To be and become man's eternal life and life-supply (Jn 4:14; 3:16; 20:31; 1:4; 6:47, 53, 57, 63, 68)
Phillip(a teaching Authority who has had first hand experience being taught by a apostle)
U too, dear Mr Athansious, can be a "teaching authority" who can first-read, and be taught by (if you are open) the first-hand, authoritative, and actual words of the apostles. In the Scriptures. In fact, it already appears you presume to be somewhat of a teaching authority by virtue of the fact u appear to be seeking to teach me. Thanx
If scripture could be the ultimate source and so easily readable and understandable and if it it could explain itself and interpet iself, then why do we need a someone to show what it means??
Did i (or anyone else here) say we didn't? If you, for instance, read it and get a 'pope' out of it: then mebbe u do need a teacher to help u. The eunuch understood what he read in that sense. He only asked about Whom Isaiah was writing
Can't it interpet itself as you say??? Of coarse it cannot,
To the contrary, in many instances the Scripture's very straightforward. At least it needs no pretend Magisterium either to suppress, contradict, or distort it. And if such an evil organization seeks to do just that, however well-intentioned, then, thank the Lord, Scripture's easily readable, searchable, pray-overable, and translated to compare exactly what such a self-proclaimed authority or Magisterium teaches, versus what the Lord's apostles and He taught