-
AFFIRMATION: There is nothing wrong with traditions, so long as they are
founded and based in the Bible.
RESPONSE: That's precisely where the rub is. Many of Rome's beliefs and
traditions are "based" upon the Bible rather than taken from the Bible; e.g.
Hollywood movies are often based upon true stories while not being
duplicates of the true stories. What I mean is: movies based upon true
stories are not meant to be documentaries, but rather, the concept of the
movie was obtained from a true story but typically with events and
circumstances altered in such a way as to make the story appeal to a larger
audience.
An example is the 2008 movie "21" starring Kevin Spacey; about some MIT
students who cleaned up in Las Vegas counting cards at Black Jack. The
story is true, but the movie version of the story isn't. It's a dramatized
version of the true story. If Hollywood had told the MIT students' story true
to life, it would have been dull to most of the audience.
A good example of Rome's practice in this respect are prayers to the dead.
Since the Bible encourages believers on the earth to pray for one another,
Rome construes that it's even better to request prayer from believers in
Heaven. That tradition of course is nowhere in the New Testament, but
rather, based upon the New Testament just like Hollywood movies that are
based upon true stories.
Q: Where in the Bible do you find where it says apostolic traditions exist only
in the Bible's texts? Haven't you read 2Thss 2:15?
A: There's a cute movie out on DVD called Legally Blonde. In one of Elle's
classes at college, her law teacher asked everybody a technical question.
One of the female students tendered an answer and the Prof asked one of
the male students if he agreed with the answer given by the female student.
He did. Then the professor asked the male student if he was willing to bet
his life that the answer the female gave was correct. He said yes. Then the
Prof pointed to a male student in the front row and asked the first if was
willing to bet the second student's life that the answer was correct.
You see what Rome would like to do to me? It would like me to bet my own
life that it's so-called Apostolic Traditions are valid. Well; let me tell them a
thing or two: It's my own derriere that's on the line before God, not theirs;
so if they don't mind, I prefer to take full responsibility for my own future
rather than let Rome take the liberty of messing it up for me. If I'm to go to
hell; I would rather it be upon my own recognizance than upon the
questionable integrity of a self-proclaimed one true church.
Around the world within the sphere of Christianity, there is one source of
revelation upon which we all pretty much agree is divinely inspired; and
that's the Holy Bible. It is the universal handbook for all Christians of every
denomination. So then, if Rome can't make its case from the Bible-- from
the universally accepted Christian handbook --then I am not willing to
permit Rome to risk my future upon data from questionable sources of
revelation.
The abuse of power that I see in Rome is really no different than the abuse
of power prevalent in Christ's day. Jewish religious leaders had a bad habit
of enforcing church-made traditions with the negative effect of making Old
Testament Judaism more strict, and more cumbersome than it really is.
Rome's so-called Apostolic Traditions, invented in Councils like Nicaea 1-2,
Constantinople 1-2-3, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Lateran 1-2-3-4-5, Lyons 1-2,
Vienne, Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vatican 1-2, have been just as
effective as Judaism's traditions in making Christianity more strict, and more
cumbersome than it really is while at the same time embellishing the Bible
with unscriptural myths.
Christ often clashed with his religion's authorities over their traditions; some
of which actually nullified God-given Scripture (e.g. Matt 15:3, Mark 7:7-9,
Mark 7:13).
According to Matt 23:23 and Luke 11:42, Christ isn't totally against
traditions just so long as they don't circumvent, replace, repeal, clash with,
marginalize, nor nullify the Bible.
For example: Christ drank wine at his final Passover meal. That element isn't
stipulated in God's instructions as per the 12th chapter of Exodus. Passover
wine is rabbi-given rather than God-given. But Christ went along with it
anyway because the tradition is quite harmless; viz: it neither circumvents,
replaces, repeals, clashes with, marginalizes, nor nullifies Passover's God
given instructions.
Q: What about 2Thss 3:6 . . Now we command you, brethren, in the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother
that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
A: Unless Christians stick to the New Testament as the "tradition which he
received of us" they are vulnerable to deception.
†. Eph 4:14-15 . .Then we will no longer be like children, forever changing
our minds about what we believe because someone has told us something
different or because someone has cleverly lied to us and made the lie sound
like the truth.
†. 1Tim 1:3-4 . . As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in
Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines
any longer nor to devote themselves to myths
†. 1Tim 4:7 . . Have nothing to do with Godless myths and old wives' tales
OBJECTION: You still didn't answer 2Thss 2:15 . .Therefore, brethren, stand
fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or
our epistle.
RESPONSE: The New Testament's manuscripts were obviously incomplete
when Paul penned his second letter to the Thessalonian believers; and in the
really early days of Christianity, the primary source of New Testament
teaching wasn't from books at all, but was totally via word of mouth; viz:
itinerant evangelism.
No doubt everything that Paul and Silvanus meant to pass on to their friends
as tradition, via word of mouth and/or via letters, was eventually put down
in writing, authored by not only Paul and Silvanus, but also by Peter, James,
John, and Jude too: as those men all preached a unified, homogenous,
harmonious message (cf. Gal 1:15-2:9, 2Pet 3:15-16). And whatever's
supposedly missing from the sacred texts, is dangerously subject to human
error, private ambition, bias, and a fertile imagination.
If Paul and his associates should show up here in Oregon at a speaking
engagement, then I will listen to the traditions that they teach by mouth.
Until that happens, I will obey his command to keep a strong grip on the
traditions he and his associates taught by letter rather than what a modern
hierarchy claims they taught by mouth; and I would advise everyone to do
the same.
=========================
AFFIRMATION: There is nothing wrong with traditions, so long as they are
founded and based in the Bible.
RESPONSE: That's precisely where the rub is. Many of Rome's beliefs and
traditions are "based" upon the Bible rather than taken from the Bible; e.g.
Hollywood movies are often based upon true stories while not being
duplicates of the true stories. What I mean is: movies based upon true
stories are not meant to be documentaries, but rather, the concept of the
movie was obtained from a true story but typically with events and
circumstances altered in such a way as to make the story appeal to a larger
audience.
An example is the 2008 movie "21" starring Kevin Spacey; about some MIT
students who cleaned up in Las Vegas counting cards at Black Jack. The
story is true, but the movie version of the story isn't. It's a dramatized
version of the true story. If Hollywood had told the MIT students' story true
to life, it would have been dull to most of the audience.
A good example of Rome's practice in this respect are prayers to the dead.
Since the Bible encourages believers on the earth to pray for one another,
Rome construes that it's even better to request prayer from believers in
Heaven. That tradition of course is nowhere in the New Testament, but
rather, based upon the New Testament just like Hollywood movies that are
based upon true stories.
Q: Where in the Bible do you find where it says apostolic traditions exist only
in the Bible's texts? Haven't you read 2Thss 2:15?
A: There's a cute movie out on DVD called Legally Blonde. In one of Elle's
classes at college, her law teacher asked everybody a technical question.
One of the female students tendered an answer and the Prof asked one of
the male students if he agreed with the answer given by the female student.
He did. Then the professor asked the male student if he was willing to bet
his life that the answer the female gave was correct. He said yes. Then the
Prof pointed to a male student in the front row and asked the first if was
willing to bet the second student's life that the answer was correct.
You see what Rome would like to do to me? It would like me to bet my own
life that it's so-called Apostolic Traditions are valid. Well; let me tell them a
thing or two: It's my own derriere that's on the line before God, not theirs;
so if they don't mind, I prefer to take full responsibility for my own future
rather than let Rome take the liberty of messing it up for me. If I'm to go to
hell; I would rather it be upon my own recognizance than upon the
questionable integrity of a self-proclaimed one true church.
Around the world within the sphere of Christianity, there is one source of
revelation upon which we all pretty much agree is divinely inspired; and
that's the Holy Bible. It is the universal handbook for all Christians of every
denomination. So then, if Rome can't make its case from the Bible-- from
the universally accepted Christian handbook --then I am not willing to
permit Rome to risk my future upon data from questionable sources of
revelation.
The abuse of power that I see in Rome is really no different than the abuse
of power prevalent in Christ's day. Jewish religious leaders had a bad habit
of enforcing church-made traditions with the negative effect of making Old
Testament Judaism more strict, and more cumbersome than it really is.
Rome's so-called Apostolic Traditions, invented in Councils like Nicaea 1-2,
Constantinople 1-2-3, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Lateran 1-2-3-4-5, Lyons 1-2,
Vienne, Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vatican 1-2, have been just as
effective as Judaism's traditions in making Christianity more strict, and more
cumbersome than it really is while at the same time embellishing the Bible
with unscriptural myths.
Christ often clashed with his religion's authorities over their traditions; some
of which actually nullified God-given Scripture (e.g. Matt 15:3, Mark 7:7-9,
Mark 7:13).
According to Matt 23:23 and Luke 11:42, Christ isn't totally against
traditions just so long as they don't circumvent, replace, repeal, clash with,
marginalize, nor nullify the Bible.
For example: Christ drank wine at his final Passover meal. That element isn't
stipulated in God's instructions as per the 12th chapter of Exodus. Passover
wine is rabbi-given rather than God-given. But Christ went along with it
anyway because the tradition is quite harmless; viz: it neither circumvents,
replaces, repeals, clashes with, marginalizes, nor nullifies Passover's God
given instructions.
Q: What about 2Thss 3:6 . . Now we command you, brethren, in the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother
that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
A: Unless Christians stick to the New Testament as the "tradition which he
received of us" they are vulnerable to deception.
†. Eph 4:14-15 . .Then we will no longer be like children, forever changing
our minds about what we believe because someone has told us something
different or because someone has cleverly lied to us and made the lie sound
like the truth.
†. 1Tim 1:3-4 . . As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in
Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines
any longer nor to devote themselves to myths
†. 1Tim 4:7 . . Have nothing to do with Godless myths and old wives' tales
OBJECTION: You still didn't answer 2Thss 2:15 . .Therefore, brethren, stand
fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or
our epistle.
RESPONSE: The New Testament's manuscripts were obviously incomplete
when Paul penned his second letter to the Thessalonian believers; and in the
really early days of Christianity, the primary source of New Testament
teaching wasn't from books at all, but was totally via word of mouth; viz:
itinerant evangelism.
No doubt everything that Paul and Silvanus meant to pass on to their friends
as tradition, via word of mouth and/or via letters, was eventually put down
in writing, authored by not only Paul and Silvanus, but also by Peter, James,
John, and Jude too: as those men all preached a unified, homogenous,
harmonious message (cf. Gal 1:15-2:9, 2Pet 3:15-16). And whatever's
supposedly missing from the sacred texts, is dangerously subject to human
error, private ambition, bias, and a fertile imagination.
If Paul and his associates should show up here in Oregon at a speaking
engagement, then I will listen to the traditions that they teach by mouth.
Until that happens, I will obey his command to keep a strong grip on the
traditions he and his associates taught by letter rather than what a modern
hierarchy claims they taught by mouth; and I would advise everyone to do
the same.
=========================
