Scripture and Tradition

[necrotic freak]

---

^^ asa man pud nahasuwat na kinahanglan ra gyud na ang tanan tradition mahasuwat o matud pa nimo "biblical"?!? mao bitaw gitagaan silag authority to loose and bind kay mao gyud ang tuyu ni hesus na kahibao siya na wala na gani sya maggubot gyud kung di niya hatagan anang authority na muinterpret para niya ang iya mga pinili.

mao bitaw giingon pud "by word of mouth or by epistles". klaro man tingali nang words diha. mao bitaw wala maapil sa scripture kay "by word of mouth" man. simple ra man tingali na na english. grabe na gyud kung di mo kasabot. siguro tungod na sa inyo mga biased convictions kay ako as an agnostic ug non-christian klaro kaayo nang nakasuwat diha. mao bitaw wala sya mahasuwat kay "by word of mouth" ug dili "by epistle" apan unsaon ta man nga ingon man sya "hold on to the traditions" pasabot wa na gyud moy mabuhat kung ingon sa simbahan na kana sila legitimate traditions ug kana pinaagi sa ila authority magsubay gyud mo. inig ingon nila na legitimate tradition ni. di gyud mo kabalibad kay naa man sila teaching authority. naa man sila power to loose and bind.

hala bo amingb dili na jud diay mo maka balibad..

[amingb]

^^ asa man pud nahasuwat na kinahanglan ra gyud na ang tanan tradition mahasuwat o matud pa nimo "biblical"?!? mao bitaw gitagaan silag authority to loose and bind kay mao gyud ang tuyu ni hesus na kahibao siya na wala na gani sya maggubot gyud kung di niya hatagan anang authority na muinterpret para niya ang iya mga pinili.

mao bitaw giingon pud "by word of mouth or by epistles". klaro man tingali nang words diha. mao bitaw wala maapil sa scripture kay "by word of mouth" man. simple ra man tingali na na english. grabe na gyud kung di mo kasabot. siguro tungod na sa inyo mga biased convictions kay ako as an agnostic ug non-christian klaro kaayo nang nakasuwat diha. mao bitaw wala sya mahasuwat kay "by word of mouth" ug dili "by epistle" apan unsaon ta man nga ingon man sya "hold on to the traditions" pasabot wa na gyud moy mabuhat kung ingon sa simbahan na kana sila legitimate traditions ug kana pinaagi sa ila authority magsubay gyud mo. inig ingon nila na legitimate tradition ni. di gyud mo kabalibad kay naa man sila teaching authority. naa man sila power to loose and bind.

Unsa nga authority naghatag nga maka himo ta ug atoang Tradition nga authorized. Word of Mouth Ug pagsabot ninyo ana mga teachings na cia aside from the written scripture, can u show us ?

Mag lisod2x lang ta nga naa nay nahisulat adto pajud ta sa wala nahisulat dili naman cguro angay na lalison.

Balikon nato ha naa nani nga Thread .. mao ni nga mga Tradition gi emphasized jud sa Roman Catholic ..

Mary worship?
The eucharist?
Purgatory?
Co-redemptrix?

"Hold on to your Tradition" that is not contradictual to Jesus teaching..

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites."
--Jesus Christ
Matthew 15:3, 6, 7

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances ( tradition ) , as I delivered them to you.

RC tradition has no Relievance from the teaching of Jesus Christ which he want us to keep.

Clearly that the tradition He want us to follow is the Scripture.


Dili mani ako daotan pag criticized i hope dili ninyo lainon pag sabot.

[necrotic freak]

Unsa nga authority naghatag nga maka himo ta ug atoang Tradition nga authorized. Word of Mouth Ug pagsabot ninyo ana mga teachings na cia aside from the written scripture, can u show us ?

bro can u also show us your church's traditions and doctrines? i guess you know them..

[amingb]

bro can u also show us your church's traditions and doctrines? i guess you know them..

The Scripture is the basis of Doctrine .. Traditions or Teaching ( is to be Christ like ) .... thats all bro.

[necrotic freak]

The Scripture is the basis of Doctrine .. Traditions or Teaching ( is to be Christ like ) .... thats all bro.

thats not all bro. but part of the all...

[amingb]

thats not all bro. but part of the all...

Dili nako ngita ug lain pa bro ma justify naman ta ana.

[necrotic freak]

Dili nako ngita ug lain pa bro ma justify naman ta ana.

Dili mana sa ingon nga ngita ka lain bro.. mao ra gihapon na pero ayaw lang sa imong kaugalingong pagsabot o interpret sa scripture kay sigurado ma sipyat jud ka..

wala ka naka bantay sa gi ingnon ni Pedro sa 2Pet 1:20 ?

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

[amingb]

Dili mana sa ingon nga ngita ka lain bro.. mao ra gihapon na pero ayaw lang sa imong kaugalingong pagsabot o interpret sa scripture kay sigurado ma sipyat jud ka..

wala ka naka bantay sa gi ingnon ni Pedro sa 2Pet 1:20 ?

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

Prophecy mana bro ... kita tawo dili ta kabuhat ug atoang prophecy gikan ra sa Ginoo. that proves nga sscripture is a Word of God.

2Pet 1:20
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation"

[amico]

Unsa nga authority naghatag nga maka himo ta ug atoang Tradition nga authorized. Word of Mouth Ug pagsabot ninyo ana mga teachings na cia aside from the written scripture, can u show us ?

Mag lisod2x lang ta nga naa nay nahisulat adto pajud ta sa wala nahisulat dili naman cguro angay na lalison.

Balikon nato ha naa nani nga Thread .. mao ni nga mga Tradition gi emphasized jud sa Roman Catholic ..

Mary worship?
The eucharist?
Purgatory?
Co-redemptrix?

"Hold on to your Tradition" that is not contradictual to Jesus teaching..

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites."
--Jesus Christ
Matthew 15:3, 6, 7

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances ( tradition ) , as I delivered them to you.

RC tradition has no Relievance from the teaching of Jesus Christ which he want us to keep.

Clearly that the tradition He want us to follow is the Scripture.


Dili mani ako daotan pag criticized i hope dili ninyo lainon pag sabot.

there was never a mary worship in the tradition of the catholic church but they have a VENERATION of saints. from early days martyrs and saints were already being honored and their sacred relics and piece of possessions (e.g clothings) were already being given due respect. and that gave rise to the devotions to the memory of the saints who died for their faith. they call it VENERATION like the VENERATION of the Ark. the ARK is not God yet it is given due respect because it is the throne of their god on earth.

the eucharist from the time of the apostles, the eucharist had already been a central part of christian worship.

1Cor 11:23.. - For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

klaro man siguro kaayo na wala man niingon diha na "this is the SYMBOL of my body... this is the SYMBOL of my blood" and how can you be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of jesus if the early church believed that it was only a SYMBOL. the eucharist had always been part of christian worship. the belief in the REAL and not SYMBOLIC Body and Blood had its basis in the words of the gospel and the words of paul to the corinthians. that is the very reason why the catholic and orthodox teachings are more biblical than the one by latter protestants.

Purgatory also had biblical basis because of the belief even by ancient jews that there is no impurities that can enter heaven. heaven is pure thus any small impurities by the soul have to undergo cleansing and that cleansing is called the PURGATORY stage. PURGATORY is not considered eternal damnation rather a state of being made worthy of entering heaven. so christians can say that before you enter the door of heaven, your impure soul will be cleansed by the blood of the lamb. that blood that is like a burning fire that will take away your sins that doesn't lead to death in the hereafter. but it is said that the sin against the holy spirit have no forgiveness in this life and in the next.

so, if you don't have the first 3 as part of your doctrine, then i say.. you're being unbiblical.

co-redemptrix (i believe) is not even a doctrine or a dogma. but some sectors of catholics society are petitioning the pope to make it a dogma. it is by her unique co-operation with God as the Woman that they call her co-redemptrix. their reasoning is this: mary's "yes" was the reason for the birth of their redeemer. without that voluntary yes, there would have been no salvation. but again it's not a dogma nor a doctrine of the catholic church.

[amingb]

there was never a mary worship in the tradition of the catholic church but they have a VENERATION of saints. from early days martyrs and saints were already being honored and their sacred relics and piece of possessions (e.g clothings) were already being given due respect. and that gave rise to the devotions to the memory of the saints who died for their faith. they call it VENERATION like the VENERATION of the Ark. the ARK is not God yet it is given due respect because it is the throne of their god on earth.

the eucharist from the time of the apostles, the eucharist had already been a central part of christian worship.

1Cor 11:23.. - For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

klaro man siguro kaayo na wala man niingon diha na "this is the SYMBOL of my body... this is the SYMBOL of my blood" and how can you be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of jesus if the early church believed that it was only a SYMBOL. the eucharist had always been part of christian worship. the belief in the REAL and not SYMBOLIC Body and Blood had it's basis in the words of the gospel and the words of paul to the corinthians. that is the very reason why the catholic and orthodox teachings are more biblical than the one by latter protestants.

Purgatory also had biblical basis because of the belief even by ancient jews that there is no impurities that can enter heaven. heaven is pure thus any small impurities by the soul have to undergo cleansing and that cleansing is called the PURGATORY stage. PURGATORY is not considered eternal damnation rather a state of being made worthy of entering heaven. so christians can say that before you enter the door of heaven, your impure soul will be cleansed by the blood of the lamb. that blood that is like a burning fire that will take away your sins that doesn't lead to death in the hereafter. but it is said that the sin against the holy spirit have no forgiveness in this life and in the next.

so, if you don't have the first 3 as part of your doctrine, then i say.. you're being unbiblical.

co-redemptrix (i believe) is not even a doctrine or a dogma. but some sectors of catholics society are petitioning the pope to make it a dogma. it is by her unique co-operation with God as the Woman that they call her co-redemptrix. their reasoning is this: mary's "yes" was the reason for the birth of their redeemer. without that voluntary yes, there would have been no salvation. but again it's not a dogma nor a doctrine of the catholic church.

Mana na gi lalisan sa lain thread bro ... kapoy na lalis ana .. cge balik2x