Catholic Church is more Biblical than Protestantism!

[metis]

I believe that but the fact is that tradition is not more biblical than the Bible.

That is what I wrote.

 

[metis]

I believe that but the fact is that tradition is not more biblical than the Bible. Since reform theology sticks to the Bible then it is more Biblical because it does not have the baggage of tradition.

You're ignoring the three verses I quoted that says that we are to follow the traditions of the Twelve, thus following tradition itself is also Biblical. Ignoring the traditions thus is in opposition to scripture.

You can't "stick to the Bible" but then only pick & choose that which you want to believe and follow.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe that but the fact is that tradition is not more biblical than the Bible. Since reform theology sticks to the Bible then it is more Biblical because it does not have the baggage of tradition.

The Holy Spirit continues to speak and if the church wants to incorporate that into custom and services, that doesn't sound wrong.

 

[pearl]

I believe many traditions are false and contrary to the Bible. Sorting them out would be a difficult task at best. I believe protestant scholars don't ignore tradition but they do want to hold it up to scrutiny in comparison with what the Bible says.

All in interpretation as in 2 Tim 3:16-17 can be taken out of context. I think
Protestants may typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching.

, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).


Apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

 

[Muffled]

You're ignoring the three verses I quoted that says that we are to follow the traditions of the Twelve, thus following tradition itself is also Biblical. Ignoring the traditions thus is in opposition to scripture.

You can't "stick to the Bible" but then only pick & choose that which you want to believe and follow.

I believe I did not see any verses.

I believe it is not logically acceptable to reason from the detail to the general. With the Apostles the traditions would have to be written in the Bible because oral traditions are lost. There are plenty of verses where Jesus upbraids the Pharisees for having traditions that are contrary to the will of God.

 

[Muffled]

The Holy Spirit continues to speak and if the church wants to incorporate that into custom and services, that doesn't sound wrong.

I believe that is true but not everyone who says the Holy Spirit is speaking to him actually has the Holy Spirit. I believe Joseph Smith is an example of that.

 

[Muffled]

All in interpretation as in 2 Tim 3:16-17 can be taken out of context. I think
Protestants may typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching.

, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).


Apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

I believe I can ask: If it isn't in the Bible how do you know where it came from? I believe Timothy learned the same things that Paul wrote and anything else was lost.

 

[metis]

I believe I did not see any verses.

Sorry about that as I posted them on a different thread. So, ...

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

2Thes.2[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2Thes.3[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.


Also, this is how John's Gospel ends:
John 21[25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe that is true but not everyone who says the Holy Spirit is speaking to him actually has the Holy Spirit. I believe Joseph Smith is an example of that.

Joseph Smith had some good things to say. I like that the LDS church sets itself up from biblical principles.

 

[Muffled]

Sorry about that as I posted them on a different thread. So, ...

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

2Thes.2[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2Thes.3[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.


Also, this is how John's Gospel ends:
John 21[25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

I believe when it is talking about traditions it is talking about what is already in the Bible. Things that are not in the Bible are not Biblical and that is what puts the RCC in the category of being less Biblical.

 

[Muffled]

Joseph Smith had some good things to say. I like that the LDS church sets itself up from biblical principles.

I believe from what I have read of his biography that he was well acquainted with the Bible. So also are the JW's and they get a bunch of things wrong also. JS claimed to be hearing the Holy Spirit but in at least one case, Moroni, it was a demon.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe from what I have read of his biography that he was well acquainted with the Bible. So also are the JW's and they get a bunch of things wrong also. JS claimed to be hearing the Holy Spirit but in at least one case, Moroni, it was a demon.

No religion gets it all right. Being man made and all...Moroni is a demon?

 

[metis]

I believe when it is talking about traditions it is talking about what is already in the Bible. Things that are not in the Bible are not Biblical and that is what puts the RCC in the category of being less Biblical.

That's not even remotely logical, plus violates what's actually in the scriptures that I posted. You can't have it both ways, whereas you claim you believe in the Bible but then ignore what's in the Bible. Thus, you rather clearly are less into the Bible than the Catholic Church is.

 

[Truth&Hope]

Please keep in mind, that nobody at RF can actually prove that I share the views of the handsome young brilliant man in this YouTube video!

The man in the video is also NOT saying that absolutely every Protestant believes what he says when he says "Protestants say XYZ"...

I just found this YouTube online, I found it very brilliant, thoughtful, ingenious, clever, powerful, and thought I would share. I'm not saying I agree with it entirely.

In the end, I don't think there is a religion on the world that is biblical. They are all unbiblical to some extent.

But the Catholic church is hands down the most biblical religion there is. I can make a very good point as to why!

Here are just three reasons why I would disagree with you and why I don’t consider Catholicism, Christianity.

I don’t need a priest to speak to or confess my sins to God.
Mary, Jesus’ mother, was blessed among women. However, she was human and not equal to God. She can’t hear my prayers or forgive me.
No one can pray anybody into Heaven; before or after they die.

Scripture does not support to the contrary.

 

[metis]

I don’t need a priest to speak to or confess my sins to God.

They did with the Apostles and then their appointees, which Jesus had given the power to with the "binding & loosening of sins". However, one can also go directly to God as well and should.

Mary, Jesus’ mother, was blessed among women. However, she was human and not equal to God.

We don't teach that she was.

She can’t hear my prayers or forgive me.

And how could you possibly know that?

BTW, in the oldest creed, the Apostle's Creed, it says "communion of saints", and the early Church believed that Jesus' Kingdom was not only in Heaven but also on Earth, thus one can pray for another.

No one can pray anybody into Heaven; before or after they die.

Of course we can't, but we don't teach that they can.

 

[Muffled]

No religion gets it all right. Being man made and all...Moroni is a demon?

I believe that is a bit of a story. I had a visit from two Latter Day Saints.At the end of the session they asked me to pray about JS. The answer I got from God was that Moroni was a demon. So they asked me if Mormonism was founded by a demon. I didn't get a chance to answer but I believe it was not founded by a demon.

 

[Muffled]

That's not even remotely logical, plus violates what's actually in the scriptures that I posted. You can't have it both ways, whereas you claim you believe in the Bible but then ignore what's in the Bible. Thus, you rather clearly are less into the Bible than the Catholic Church is.

I believe we will disagree about that. However I would like to see your logic since you claim to have some.

I believe I do not see how that can be.

I do not believe I ignored the scripture.

I believe that is illogical and unfounded. First I can't be compared to a church denomination and second you have no way of knowing how Biblical I am. A different interpretation does not make me less Biblical and makes me equally biblical.

 

[Muffled]

Joseph Smith had some good things to say. I like that the LDS church sets itself up from biblical principles.

I believe they have come across to me as elitist.

 

[metis]

I believe we will disagree about that. However I would like to see your logic since you claim to have some.

I believe I do not see how that can be.

I do not believe I ignored the scripture.

I believe that is illogical and unfounded. First I can't be compared to a church denomination and second you have no way of knowing how Biblical I am. A different interpretation does not make me less Biblical and makes me equally biblical.

I covered this in my post #28 that deals with "tradition" and with supporting verses.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Sorry about that as I posted them on a different thread. So, ...

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

2Thes.2[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2Thes.3[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.


Also, this is how John's Gospel ends:
John 21[25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men ...

The only religious traditions we should keep are those taught by the Apostles.