[grip_daddy]

It is this method that's the problem, Grip, scriptures have to be understood in their historical context. Not through Biblical scholasticism. Scholasticism just allows for subjectivity.



One thing we share with you is the Trinity of God. Historically this nature of God became ratified as a church's doctrine years after the apostles had all died, and it happens to conform to scholastic approach of study, so I believe in Trinity too. There are truths that were not recorded by the apostles, but when found, they happen to CONFORM, not CONTRADICT, with the scriptures. Please mark the word CONTRADICT.

In Acts Paul commended the believers who were searching the scriptures in order to compare the apostolic preachings with the prophecies of OT. In another place Jesus told the Pharacees that they err because they knew not the scriptures.

History and the so called tradition must agree with underlying principles of the bible, of which if they are in disagreement, I choose the bible and disregard the tradition.

You're still using the Bible-only approach. The fact that the New Testament is silent about the change doesn't mean that the change didn't happen or that it isn't significant.

The change happened as an express change to the law of God. This change is given by history to have taken place gradually to accommodate pagan worshippers who rested on Sunday and also to ease the persecution pain by acquiring a form of similarity to Roman worship methods. A lot of the traditions which we see in the mainstrain Orthodox churches are documented to have formed a greater part of Babylonian religious festivities and sacramental systems which were past on to the Roman religious culture. Actually a closer study of History reveals Sunday worship to have existed during the captivity of Israelites in Babylon.

Just to mention a few, some of the practices borrowed from Babylon included infant baptism, water sprinkling, 25th Dec holidays, etc.

There's some teachings Christ taught that are not recorded in the New Testament. An example is in Acts 20:35, Paul quotes Jesus as saying "It is more blessed to give than to receive." None of the Gospels record that. The closest to this quote is "Freely you have received, freely give."

Agreed. But any teachings that are said to be from inspiration, those with a closer walk of God, any new prophet or seer, any ancient writings that may be discovered today, any word of mouth passage of information, any inherited culture and tradition, must be in agreement to the established truth as God's people documented in OT specifically, and should not contradict the teachings of the apostles.

For example, would you believe the story of Jesus' marriage and His two sons from tradition? If no, what would prevent you from believing it if some letter was discovered claiming to have come from Peter addressed to the said wife of Jesus?

I wont believe because of Isaiah 53, Hebrews 7, and such like scriptures. You?

[Jamalanga]

Traditions of the church holds no authority to the scriptures.Isaiah 29:13 and Jesus had this to say.Mark 7:6 "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites: As it is written: "These people honour me with their lips.but their hearts are far from me.They worship me invain: their teachings are but rules taught by men, And he said to them." you have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions.
The temple of God was open in heaven,and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament Rev.11:19 The ark of Gods testament is in the holy of holies.the second apartment of the sanctuary.
The ark in the tabernacle on earth contained the two tablets of stone,upon which were inscribed the precepts of the law of God.The ark was mererly a receptacle for the tables of the law, and the presence of these divine precepts gave to it its value and sacredness.When the temple of God was opened in heaven,the ark of his testament was seen,within the holy of holies,in the sanctuary in heaven,the divine law is sacredly enshrined. The law that was spoken by God himself amid the thunders of Sinai and written with his own finger on the tables of stone,
The law of God in the sanctuary in heaven is the great original,of which the precepts inscribed upon the tables of stone and recorded by Moses in the pentateuch were an unerring transcript.The law of God,being a revelation of his will,a transcript of his character, must forever endure,as a faithfull witness in heaven,not a jot or a tittle has been changed. says the psalmist,"Forever, O Lord,thy word is settled in heaven.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

One thing we share with you is the Trinity of God. Historically this nature of God became ratified as a church's doctrine years after the apostles had all died, and it happens to conform to scholastic approach of study, so I believe in Trinity too. There are truths that were not recorded by the apostles, but when found, they happen to CONFORM, not CONTRADICT, with the scriptures. Please mark the word CONTRADICT.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

History and the so called tradition must agree with underlying principles of the bible, of which if they are in disagreement, I choose the bible and disregard the tradition.

Actually its the other way Grip. Tradition was a standard by which the New Testament texts were exposed to when they were being canonized in the 4th century. If this church fell into paganism, then you shouldn't even trust the Bible.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

The change happened as an express change to the law of God. This change is given by history to have taken place gradually to accommodate pagan worshippers who rested on Sunday and also to ease the persecution pain by acquiring a form of similarity to Roman worship methods. A lot of the traditions which we see in the mainstrain Orthodox churches are documented to have formed a greater part of Babylonian religious festivities and sacramental systems which were past on to the Roman religious culture. Actually a closer study of History reveals Sunday worship to have existed during the captivity of Israelites in Babylon.

Grip, Here's a quote from St Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Magnesians, who was a disciple of John. Don't you think John would have corrected him of such an error?
Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Agreed. But any teachings that are said to be from inspiration, those with a closer walk of God, any new prophet or seer, any ancient writings that may be discovered today, any word of mouth passage of information, any inherited culture and tradition, must be in agreement to the established truth as God's people documented in OT specifically, and should not contradict the teachings of the apostles.

So how do you distinguish between traditions of man and tradition of the apostles?

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

For example, would you believe the story of Jesus' marriage and His two sons from tradition? If no, what would prevent you from believing it if some letter was discovered claiming to have come from Peter addressed to the said wife of Jesus?

Well, it isn't. Its actually you who faces this problem. When the church fathers came together and canonized the New Testament, you're placing faith in them. Why trust them on this issue and not on the issue of Sunday worship etc?

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

I wont believe because of Isaiah 53, Hebrews 7, and such like scriptures. You?

you mean you won't believe because of your interpretation of those scriptures

I think we're getting too sidetracked in this thread, we should probably start another thread that deals specifically with the issue of Church Tradition.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Jamalanga

Traditions of the church holds no authority to the scriptures

Jamalanga, the Bible says follow Tradition:
2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Also, when the New Testament text was being canonized, they used tradition as a standard to determine which books were genuine and which were not.

[Jamalanga]

Jamalanga;658612]Traditions of the church holds no authority to the scriptures.Isaiah 29:13 and Jesus had this to say.Mark 7:6 "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites: As it is written: "These people honour me with their lips.but their hearts are far from me.They worship me invain: their teachings are but rules taught by men, And he said to them." you have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions.
The temple of God was open in heaven,and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament Rev.11:19 The ark of Gods testament is in the holy of holies.the second apartment of the sanctuary.
The ark in the tabernacle on earth contained the two tablets of stone,upon which were inscribed the precepts of the law of God.The ark was mererly a receptacle for the tables of the law, and the presence of these divine precepts gave to it its value and sacredness.When the temple of God was opened in heaven,the ark of his testament was seen,within the holy of holies,in the sanctuary in heaven,the divine law is sacredly enshrined. The law that was spoken by God himself amid the thunders of Sinai and written with his own finger on the tables of stone,
The law of God in the sanctuary in heaven is the great original,of which the precepts inscribed upon the tables of stone and recorded by Moses in the pentateuch were an unerring transcript.The law of God,being a revelation of his will,a transcript of his character, must forever endure,as a faithfull witness in heaven,not a jot or a tittle has been changed. says the psalmist,"Forever, O Lord,thy word is settled in heaven.[/quote]

[Genuwine]

What is all the hullaballo? Mark 2:24-28 says - "At this the Pharisees said to him, 'Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?' He said to them, "have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry?"......then he said to them "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. That is why the son of Man is lord over the Sabbath."
chpt.3:1-6 continues: Again he entered the synagogue.....watched him closely to see if he would cure him (man with wihtered hand) on the sabbath so that they accuse him......he said to them "Is it lawful to do to do good on sabbath rather than do evil, to save life rather than to destroy?".....

If Christ then is lord over sabbath...his resurrection on Easter Sunday show that he has conqured death and Sunday the new sabbath.

[grip_daddy]

Correction first:
Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath, not Lord over Sabbath.

If Christ then is lord over sabbath...his resurrection on Easter Sunday show that he has conqured death and Sunday the new sabbath.

Really? How now? Your statement is very very illogical. Actually what you are saying is that since He is the LORD of the Sabbath, the Sabbath should be kept in His honour. Note that the Seventh Day Sabbath has been referred to as the Lord's day honourable. God called it "My holy day", "The Sabbath of the LORD", "The LORD's Sabbath", "My day". It is the only day that was blessed, sanctified, hallowed and set aside for rest.

If indeed Jesus is the LORD of the Sabbath, then He is the one who rested on the Sabbath after Creation. Then He is the one who made the Sabbath for man. Then He is the one who commanded man to keep the ten commandments. Then it is the ten commandments He referred to when He said, "If you love me, keep my commandments".

Under what reasoning to we substitute Sabbath for Sunday? Your reasoning was not even applied by the early church for Sunday worship, actually no one specifically knows the true reason how Sunday became a dominant day for Christian worship. There are hundreds of documented historical reasons but non takes your argument above.

[grip_daddy]

Ndigila,

Hope you are aware of Mythra. Would you compare and contrast the religious traditions, worship methods, philosophies, and general doctrines of this ancient religion with the practices of Christian Church at around 150AD onwards?
bible history mysteries oddities and fascinating facts has some nice materials on origin of some philosophies that were adopted by the church.

I'll bring some specific objects of belief in Mythra and ask why such beliefs warranted borrowing by the church.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Ndigila,

Hope you are aware of Mythra. Would you compare and contrast the religious traditions, worship methods, philosophies, and general doctrines of this ancient religion with the practices of Christian Church at around 150AD onwards?
bible history mysteries oddities and fascinating facts has some nice materials on origin of some philosophies that were adopted by the church.

I'll bring some specific objects of belief in Mythra and ask why such beliefs warranted borrowing by the church.

I am aware of Mithra. Muhammad in the other thread drew similarities not only with the church but with general Christian theology. But Grip, if this church fell into apostasy, why do then trust it's decision when it was canonizing the books of the New Testament? And when Jesus said that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against his church, if it fell into apostasy less than 100 years after he left, did he really deliver on his promise?

Besides Grip, alot of what is still done today has pagan origin. A white wedding dress is of pagan origin. One could also easily make the argument that Christian Rock music and Holy Hip Hop is mixing Christianity with the secularized culture.

We probably should take this discussion into a new thread

[grip_daddy]

For the sake of continuing the Sabbath discussions let me respond to bits of your questions below:

But Grip, if this church fell into apostasy, why do then trust it's decision when it was canonizing the books of the New Testament?

This must be carefully studied. At the time of NT canonisation, there still were different groupings of believers with some still attached to the apostolic teachings whereas the majority were joining the pagan philosophies of the time. The Church's organisation before a full enactment of the Papacy, especially before the Pope acquired secular authority and infalability, the church still used the OT and Jesus teachings to arrive at truth.

A method generally followed was as recorded in Acts 15 which compared accepted teachings with the Law (Torah). Apostasy did not occure in a split of time, but was very gradual with twists and turns, which would mean acceptance of pagan practices over time.

Besides Grip, alot of what is still done today has pagan origin. A white wedding dress is of pagan origin.

A lot of practices by individual Christians, groupings, and entire church has also depended on the cultural heritage of the believers. My concern basically is, if such a practice is in direct violation of God's ordained ways, should we value tradition more? The Sabbath had a direct and express command from God, how do we replace it apart from God Himself?

One could also easily make the argument that Christian Rock music and Holy Hip Hop is mixing Christianity with the secularized culture.

There is a direct statement in the bible that asks people to do everything to the glory of God. Whenever a chosen instrument will give glory to the opposing force, that instrument must be forsaken.