JFJ Forums

OK, I'm bringing the discussion from the Talmud thread to here.




You are, when you start upholding man's word over God's.

You say "we aren't to have private interpretations" yet it is ONLY the RCC that hold a miriad of doctrines that won't be found, or alluded to in the NT, nor foreshadowed in the OT.

They ARE private interpretations, made by RCC leaders, rationalized by them and their followers (who for centuries did not have access to the word to read themselves, those people are excused in my eyes because they knew no better....YOU DO!)

The ONLY reason they can get away with it is the same reason Pharisees/Orthodox can tie millstones around the necks of Jews with added Torah: self-proclaimed authority to speak extra-biblical doctrines, and *that* authority not found in the Bible.

God is *our* Authority. His word is the SOLE measuring rod for every word that is uttered by men. ALL men, great and least.

So, when anyone, even a leader, says somehting that does not align with scripture, it is NOT FROM GOD.

Example: Peter, separating from gentiles to eat. Peter was a leader. Peter was even one of the twelve. He was VERY CLOSE to Jesus. But he was STILL WRONG, and Paul corrected him, publickly!

Peter could have lorded his literal 3 year communion with Jesus over Paul, the "johnny come lately former Christ persecutor"...asserted that he had "more authority" than Paul, but he didn't argue. Because Peter didn't let pride get in the way of truth.

But not so with the RCC leadership. In the past they threatened even true believers (their BROTHERS!), now they pitifully acquiece to the very Devil: Mullahs of Islam and Darwinists.

They are rudderless now, because they didn't give scripture it's proper honor, nor honor their brothers in other areas of the world, and relied on private interpretation, and "yes men" bishops who worried about losing their own status (or necks) if they disagreed.

You need to really, fully realize that not only did Jesus rebuke Oral Torah, but so did the twelve, evidenced by their following Him. Had they agreed with the Talmudists, they would have renounced Jesus, TOO. Only two known Talmudists followed Jesus: Nicodemus and Paul (as far as I know), in doing so, they renounced Oral Torah.

And they are renouced by Talmudists as being ignorant Jews, along with all the rest of the disciples.

Yes! Sacred Tradition has it's roots in Oral Tradition/Torah. But Oral Torah is UNGODLY to begin with.  

Can you just respectfully agree to disagree with Mr. Kirscher if he's doing what needs to be done? (Acts 15, Romans 14) You aren't better than Mr. Kirscher yet claim to be more spiritually Jewish (Deuteronomy 9, Romans 2, 3:1-10) while the ethnically- and spiritually-Jewish people recieved the Gospel first (Genesis 12:1-8, Romans 1:16).

So why is the Christian Testament not Oral Torah?
Huge parts of it is totally not based on the Bible.
It just became a new tradition. And than tradition creates dogma's and questions if it is realy the word of God. Well that is going to be a long discussion.

The strenght and weakness of Protestants, or other outsiders from the RCC or Eastern traditions. Is that they are further away from the origins, and also not centralized. So every Protester starts to say that they understand the True meaning of the text better than anyone else who allready understands the True meaning.
Besides that. Less organized, it's easier not to conform with protesters, who also have thoughts or communion with Darwin, other texts and ideologies...

Greetings, keep on writing about the big puzzle

Goy~



1) I am not trying to be disrespectful. (I have yet to call him a self-hating [anything] and call him by some disrespectful Hebrew name, like I have seen others do, for example.)

2) Feel free to defend Talmud, Goy. Jump in.

3)

What does this have to do with anything? Oh, yeah, 3/16...

yetzirah~



1) just like the HT is not Oral Torah--IT IS WRITTEN.

2) Oral Torah is the Authority to add to God's Word (creating new Torah) and in doing so, perverting it. (Good intentions have nothing to do with it, the end result is what it is.) There is no biblical basis for it.

3) You know as well as I do how Orthodox look down their noses at all other Jews, because of their "supremecy"...same goes with RCC to the rest of the Body of Christ. (All the while claiming persecution.)




We have the scriptures to read for ourselves. We are as "close to the origins" as you are to Sinai.

Most often, we aren't talking about what is found in the text, but what isn't found there and is RCC doctrine anyway.

In this thread it is the doctrine of Sacred Tradition.

Again you make the claim that I’m upholding man’s word over God.  I’ve emphatically claimed multiple times that I reject this and it is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.  I realize you disagree with orthodox Christian interpretation of scripture, but that doesn’t make it a tradition of man.

You claim it is only the RCC that holds to “a myriad of traditions that won’t be found ….”.  Actually the teachings of the RCC are nearly identical to the teachings of the Eastern Church and extremely close to conservative Anglican Church.  I don’t understand why you are attacking the RCC and not these other traditions as well.

Do you have an example of a “private interpretation”.  I gave a very detailed analysis of Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem.   In brief summary: There was uncertainty in a particular teaching, the leaders of the church all gathered together, a binding decision was made through the power of the Holy Spirit, the decision was recorded as an encyclical and distributed to the universal church.  The individual churches accepted the decision of the Council.  This is EXACTLY how the Catholic Church operates today and always has. How many other bodies of believers do you know that follow this model?   Not many, if any.  Instead, what do we see?  It’s quite simple:  A disagreement is encountered then a new denomination is formed (or it becomes an unimportant “secondary issue”, or the claim is made “I’m not of any particular denomination, I’m just a bible believing Christian”).

You have stated several times that the authority of the church is “self-proclaimed”.  Scripture shows that Jesus granted his authority to the Apostles (keys, bind/loose, forgive/retain) to feed his sheep.  He appointed an “Al-Bayit” (Is 22:22/Mt 16). Scripture shows that the Apostles subsequently appointed apostles (Apostolic Succession).  This is not only in the N.T. but it is in complete accord with the Jewish tradition of “Semicha” (Rabbinic Succession) which is recorded in Nm 27:15-23.  Read this for yourself.  At the command of God, Moses lays his hands on Joshua so that God’s people will not be “like sheep without a shepherd”.  God commands Moses to “transfer some of your [Moses] authority”.  We see the same with Peter and the rest of the Apostles and to those they in turn commission.  “I will give you the keys …”, laying on of hands, “feed my sheep”, authority to bind and loose.  So tell me how this is self-proclaimed?????  It is straight from the scripture!!!  And it is consistent with the Jewish roots of our faith.  You may disagree with this teaching but it is not “self-proclaimed” it is “scripture-proclaimed”.  So tell me, is “Semicha” also a “Talmudist Tradition”?

The fact that Peter was corrected by Paul does nothing to refute his authority.  If anything, it shows how God chooses the weak so that He gets all the Glory.  It also emphasizes the need for the Church to work together rather than to split apart.

Point taken. I have said to you before that I will apply this to any denomination that takes scripture to an extreme, changing the gospel: adding to God's word. I am not a respector of denominations.

IE: Baptists who claim that unless one is baptized they won't enter heaven. Baptism being a condition of acceptance/salvation.

But since you are RCC the debate naturally is/was along those lines.




Sacred Tradition itself is the example. Where is it found in scripture? BTW, you appeal to things said by Paul, who you claim is not the Rock, so then why appeal to Paul? He says nothing of submitting to Peter. If Peter has such status, why don't we read the other Apostle's telling of this?

Futhermore, as I have cited many times, scripture is VERY CLEAR HERE:

Nevertheless, brothers, I call on you in the name of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah to agree, all of you, in what you say, and not to let yourselves remain split into factions but be restored to having a common mind and a common purpose. For some of Chloe's people have made it known to me, my brothers, that there are quarrels among you. I say this because one of you says, "I follow Sha'ul"; another says, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Kefa"; while still another says, "I follow the Messiah!" Has the Messiah been split in pieces? Was it Sha'ul who was put to death on a stake for you? Were you immersed into the name of Sha'ul?
1 Cor. 1:10-13

Please be honest, wk. The view of the RCC proper is that the RCC is THE "visable church", THE "pillar and foundations fo truth", it ALONE has the quthority of the Apostle, who ALONE was transferred the Authority of Christ. (Parallel THAT with Orthodos claims. Yes, very similar.)

Stop using words/terms that have a FULLY DIFFERENT MEANING to you, that unless we understand RCC doctrine, we might agree with, because on the surface the words/phrases themselves do come from scripture. But they don't have the same meaning to those of us outside the RCC as those within. It is disengenuous, misleading.

Like I have said to Goy in other threads, there are two people in this world: His People, and Not His People.

Again you make the claim that I’m upholding man’s word over God.  I’ve emphatically claimed multiple times that I reject this and it is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.  I realize you disagree with orthodox Christian interpretation of scripture, but that doesn’t make it a tradition of man.


WS if you would pick up the book jesus freaks you would see many people suffering under The RCC for disagreeing for there belief on salvation.

The L-rd told me, "A cult always emphasizes it's error," when I first came to know Him and was understandably concerned about who could be trusted to know the truth. Let's apply that principle to the RCC. They.......

1) Believe Mary is to be prayed to, that she is an intercessor between Yeshua and man, and that she as the mother of G-d is also divine.

2) Believe we are to pray to the "saints".

3) Believe we are to call men our Father.

4) Believe the wafer/host is LITERALLY the Son's body.
  
5) Does not teach the doctrine of being born from above.

6) Believe Peter began and is the head, and not Yeshua who is and always will be, the head of the church.

7) Believe in praying endless and lifeless prayers on rosaries, also to Mary.

8) Believe in "Mary" appearing all over the world, even though we are told to look for HIS APPEARING, and to shun angels of light.

9) Do not teach the baptism in the Spirit or that there are any gifts of the Spirit for the believer to walk in, thereby continuing to usurp the rightful authority of the HS over the believer.

10) Superstitiously believe that healing, direction, answers to prayers, ect. come from contact with deceased individuals such as Mary or praying to saints.

We were bought with a price, we are not our own, and we are not to become the chattel of ANY man again, save being a bondslave of LOVE to the L-rd Yeshua.

I've no doubt missed some other errors I don't know about, but these are the ones that come to mind. If I sound a little less enraptured with them particularly as a whole, it's probably because my family line did not do too well at their hands for the last 500 years, as they ran for the first 400 of those years, from country to country trying to escape their wrath and their death sentences as they influenced kings, the last of which they ran from, was only in the 1800's.

They have counterfeited and corrupted everything that the Son and the Spirit of G-d instituted and instructed, and while I love the people ensnared therein, I wholeheartedly hate with a G-dly hate, the institution that has deceived them.

The oil runs from the head to the feet, and if you cannot "support" ALL that the "head" is, then you have to question; just what "body" are you a part of, if the oil has not come down to you (ie. the "feet" that walks Him around in the earth), also?

It is so NOT my intention to go through every doctrine with which we disagree. IMO, that would take separate threads, one for each doctrine to keep it "orderly".

But the root of all of them is Sacred Tradition. Much like Oral Tradtion, that doctrine gives RCC leaders self-proclaimed, sole "right" to speak for God and add to His word; extrapolating doctrines that are not in the text.

It is also not my intent to tear wk down, or insult him personally. Even though there may be some strong/passionate language, I have sincere respect and true love for wk. (I understand that when reading his posts, too.)