Total Posts:460|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Matthew 15:1-9 and Roman Catholicism

Kilk1
Posts: 304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

Doesn't this passage teach that man cannot update the teaching of the word of God through tradition? Thanks!
Casten
Posts: 2,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2018 11:00:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I really don't see a lot of Catholic regulars here, so you may not get many bites. But here's a charity bump.

Those seem like some of the issues that were at the very heart of the conflict in the Protestant/Catholic schism.
Bummed about the low activity and abandonment of DDO? You can always try us on DART: https://www.debateart.com...
Kilk1
Posts: 304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2018 8:24:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2018 11:00:40 AM, Casten wrote:
I really don't see a lot of Catholic regulars here, so you may not get many bites. But here's a charity bump.

Those seem like some of the issues that were at the very heart of the conflict in the Protestant/Catholic schism.

Thanks for the heads up! Hopefully, I'll get a reply, but only time will tell.
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified. Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men". Sacred tradition would be just as valid as sacred scripture. We know that not all traditions were condemned by Jesus and the Apostles because Paul specifically recommended and required us to follow certain traditions:

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "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" (2 Thess. 3:6).


Doesn't this passage teach that man cannot update the teaching of the word of God through tradition? Thanks!

Good thing for us we don't do that.
WisdomOfAges
Posts: 1,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2018 12:47:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
IDIOT...this Bible verse vomit most likely is now used as metaphor.....regardless so much of it is HORRIFICALLY OBSOLETE....so irrelevant..it's nothing more than story telling of a long gone era when illiteracy and ignorance were RAMPANT..

YES many Tribes of LUNATICS seeking a place in the desert...you completely write off the Ancient civilizations around the world....INDIA..CHINA...ASIA...AMERICAS= indian cultures
who had their own writings, GODS, spirits...etc...WAKE UP FOOL...you are hypnotized by this garbage...

Your an IDIOT....Jesus and Allah are 2 Middle East GODS with retarded Bible/Quran Comic book insanity....see them as MYTHOLOGY like Zeus and Odin...chill out over this stupidity
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

The argument is that an elder either (1) has to be married to one wife or (2) has to have been married to one wife.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men".

Correct. He is condemning those "traditions" which were simply made up by uninspired men, i. e. nobody was able to find them in the scriptures.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2018 1:25:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2018 12:47:38 AM, WisdomOfAges wrote:
IDIOT...this Bible verse vomit most likely is now used as metaphor.....regardless so much of it is HORRIFICALLY OBSOLETE....so irrelevant..it's nothing more than story telling of a long gone era when illiteracy and ignorance were RAMPANT..

YES many Tribes of LUNATICS seeking a place in the desert...you completely write off the Ancient civilizations around the world....INDIA..CHINA...ASIA...AMERICAS= indian cultures
who had their own writings, GODS, spirits...etc...WAKE UP FOOL...you are hypnotized by this garbage...

Your an IDIOT....Jesus and Allah are 2 Middle East GODS with retarded Bible/Quran Comic book insanity....see them as MYTHOLOGY like Zeus and Odin...chill out over this stupidity

That's an extremely poor answer to the question.
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

The argument is that an elder either (1) has to be married to one wife or (2) has to have been married to one wife.


Or ONLY one wife (if married)

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men".

Correct. He is condemning those "traditions" which were simply made up by uninspired men, i. e. nobody was able to find them in the scriptures.

Agreed. Good thing we Catholics don't do that.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2018 5:10:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

I thought so too, since if something is taught, it is a doctrine, and if the doctrine is practiced, then it's a practice.

Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

The argument is that an elder either (1) has to be married to one wife or (2) has to have been married to one wife.


Or ONLY one wife (if married)

Yes, it excludes polygamists just as it excludes those who were never married.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men".

Correct. He is condemning those "traditions" which were simply made up by uninspired men, i. e. nobody was able to find them in the scriptures.

Agreed. Good thing we Catholics don't do that.

LOL. Y'all are experts at it! That's why you can't find a single example of an unmarried bishop (or elder), but rather find the statement "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife". What do Catholics say, "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of no wife - past, present, or future." Paul said one thing. Y'all say another.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2018 5:35:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

A baseless claim against a groundless and arbitrary assertion. The apostle Paul plainly stated, "A bishop then must be ... the husband of one wife ... One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity, for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" He didn't say "might be", or "I think it's a good idea for now if he", or "for the time being".

Paul rhetorically asked, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Therefore, not only must a bishop be or have been the husband of one wife, but he also must have children. That makes perfect sense: the household is therefore a sort-of "proving ground" for the eldership. It's the one place that a man could demonstrate that he has at least the ability to "rule" others well.

As far as I can tell, the Catholics totally undermine the logic here - and I'm not really sure why. It seems plain enough.
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2018 10:57:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2018 5:10:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

I thought so too, since if something is taught, it is a doctrine, and if the doctrine is practiced, then it's a practice.


Not everything taught is doctrine. The Trinity is a doctrine. Protestant pastors wearing choir robes is a practice (not a doctrine), even though it was taught to them.

Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

The argument is that an elder either (1) has to be married to one wife or (2) has to have been married to one wife.


Or ONLY one wife (if married)

Yes, it excludes polygamists just as it excludes those who were never married.

AGAIN, to claim they have to be married would require them to lose their office if their wife died. The fact that the verse says "one" wife wouldn't be necessary if it was requiring bishops to be married. It would have simply said "a bishop shall be married." "One" is clearly a condemnation of polygamy.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men".

Correct. He is condemning those "traditions" which were simply made up by uninspired men, i. e. nobody was able to find them in the scriptures.

Agreed. Good thing we Catholics don't do that.

LOL. Y'all are experts at it! That's why you can't find a single example of an unmarried bishop (or elder), but rather find the statement "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife". What do Catholics say, "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of no wife - past, present, or future." Paul said one thing. Y'all say another.

Except, as I've shown, you have misinterpreted the verse.
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2018 11:26:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2018 5:35:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

A baseless claim against a groundless and arbitrary assertion. The apostle Paul plainly stated, "A bishop then must be ... the husband of one wife ... One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity, for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" He didn't say "might be", or "I think it's a good idea for now if he", or "for the time being".

Paul rhetorically asked, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Therefore, not only must a bishop be or have been the husband of one wife, but he also must have children. That makes perfect sense: the household is therefore a sort-of "proving ground" for the eldership. It's the one place that a man could demonstrate that he has at least the ability to "rule" others well.

As far as I can tell, the Catholics totally undermine the logic here - and I'm not really sure why. It seems plain enough.

Man, I have to give you credit for one thing, Anna... you're tough! You wouldn't let the Apostle Paul or Jesus to be your bishop. After all, both were celibate, so had no wife or kids. Even Peter wasn't as strict as you. He called Jesus a bishop in Peter 2:25

"For you had gone astray like sheep, but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls (NAB)."

The word translated guardian here in the NAB is actually not just a bishop; rather, the bishop (Greek, ton episkopon) of your souls.

Like I said, you're TOUGH!
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2018 2:22:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2018 10:57:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:10:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

I thought so too, since if something is taught, it is a doctrine, and if the doctrine is practiced, then it's a practice.


Not everything taught is doctrine. The Trinity is a doctrine. Protestant pastors wearing choir robes is a practice (not a doctrine), even though it was taught to them.

If they wear special choir robes, and they were taught to do so, then it's a doctrine. I'll grant that it's a false doctrine, however.

Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

The argument is that an elder either (1) has to be married to one wife or (2) has to have been married to one wife.


Or ONLY one wife (if married)

Yes, it excludes polygamists just as it excludes those who were never married.

AGAIN, to claim they have to be married would require them to lose their office if their wife died. The fact that the verse says "one" wife wouldn't be necessary if it was requiring bishops to be married. It would have simply said "a bishop shall be married." "One" is clearly a condemnation of polygamy.

What I said was, "They have to (1) be married to one wife, and (2) to have been married to one wife."

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men".

Correct. He is condemning those "traditions" which were simply made up by uninspired men, i. e. nobody was able to find them in the scriptures.

Agreed. Good thing we Catholics don't do that.

LOL. Y'all are experts at it! That's why you can't find a single example of an unmarried bishop (or elder), but rather find the statement "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife". What do Catholics say, "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of no wife - past, present, or future." Paul said one thing. Y'all say another.

Except, as I've shown, you have misinterpreted the verse.

You haven't shown it. It means, "An elder must be or have been the husband of one wife."

This excludes homosexual marriages.
This excludes polygamists.
This excludes men who have been married, divorced, and remarried
This excludes men who have never been married.

What is so difficult about that for you?
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2018 2:32:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2018 11:26:26 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:35:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

A baseless claim against a groundless and arbitrary assertion. The apostle Paul plainly stated, "A bishop then must be ... the husband of one wife ... One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity, for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" He didn't say "might be", or "I think it's a good idea for now if he", or "for the time being".

Paul rhetorically asked, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Therefore, not only must a bishop be or have been the husband of one wife, but he also must have children. That makes perfect sense: the household is therefore a sort-of "proving ground" for the eldership. It's the one place that a man could demonstrate that he has at least the ability to "rule" others well.

As far as I can tell, the Catholics totally undermine the logic here - and I'm not really sure why. It seems plain enough.


Man, I have to give you credit for one thing, Anna... you're tough! You wouldn't let the Apostle Paul or Jesus to be your bishop.

After all, both were celibate, so had no wife or kids. Even Peter wasn't as strict as you. He called Jesus a bishop in Peter 2:25

You are correct that Jesus Himself would not qualify as an elder in the church, and He is of course never presented as such.

"For you had gone astray like sheep, but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls (NAB)."

The word translated guardian here in the NAB is actually not just a bishop; rather, the bishop (Greek, ton episkopon) of your souls.


Like I said, you're TOUGH!

... and of course that was said when Jesus was no longer here on earth, and it has no reference whatsoever to a man being an elder in a local congregation of the church.

I'm not "tough" at all. The Apostle Paul gave us the qualification for the office of a bishop, or pastor, or overseer, or elder more than once. It just so happens that certain groups of men are excluded. And women are excluded altogether. That's why y'all don't have any 18-year-old popes: it says, "not a novice", i. e. a bishop must be older, more mature, more experienced, more well-versed than a person would be at age 18. He also must be or have been the husband of one wife.

That is so easy .... soooooooo easy .... that I fail to see why you do not practice it.
Kilk1
Posts: 304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2018 7:14:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified. Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men". Sacred tradition would be just as valid as sacred scripture. We know that not all traditions were condemned by Jesus and the Apostles because Paul specifically recommended and required us to follow certain traditions:

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "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" (2 Thess. 3:6).


Doesn't this passage teach that man cannot update the teaching of the word of God through tradition? Thanks!

Good thing for us we don't do that.

So basically, you agree that man's teaching can't update the word of God, but you say that "sacred tradition" can. I would say "God-inspired" tradition, as the distinction given in Matthew 21:23-27 (in this specific case, on John's baptism) was whether a practice is from "heaven" (God) or "men."

With this in mind, if you're saying that Catholic tradition is not from men but originated from heaven (God), how do you know this? What evidence do you have that Catholicism is God-inspired such that it can change Biblical teaching?
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2018 1:30:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2018 2:22:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 10:57:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:10:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

I thought so too, since if something is taught, it is a doctrine, and if the doctrine is practiced, then it's a practice.


Not everything taught is doctrine. The Trinity is a doctrine. Protestant pastors wearing choir robes is a practice (not a doctrine), even though it was taught to them.

If they wear special choir robes, and they were taught to do so, then it's a doctrine.

No it's not. A doctrine is a belief like the Trinity, incarnation, virgin birth:

"a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church,"

Doctrine is WHAT we believe. Practices are HOW we practice our faith. How we carry the scriptures to the alter (for example). Doctrines don't change, but practices can.


Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

The argument is that an elder either (1) has to be married to one wife or (2) has to have been married to one wife.


Or ONLY one wife (if married)

Yes, it excludes polygamists just as it excludes those who were never married.

AGAIN, to claim they have to be married would require them to lose their office if their wife died. The fact that the verse says "one" wife wouldn't be necessary if it was requiring bishops to be married. It would have simply said "a bishop shall be married." "One" is clearly a condemnation of polygamy.

What I said was, "They have to (1) be married to one wife, and (2) to have been married to one wife."


Now who's going against what the Bible says?? Nowhere in that verse does it say "to HAVE been married to one wife. It has the present tense "must be", not "must have been". "Be" implies present time. You can't say they must be married, and then when you realize your claim is untenable, twist scripture around. Obviously, if they were required to be married, it would say "must be married" period. The only reason to add "to one wife" is solely to forbid polygamy.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men".

Correct. He is condemning those "traditions" which were simply made up by uninspired men, i. e. nobody was able to find them in the scriptures.

Agreed. Good thing we Catholics don't do that.

LOL. Y'all are experts at it! That's why you can't find a single example of an unmarried bishop (or elder), but rather find the statement "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife". What do Catholics say, "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of no wife - past, present, or future." Paul said one thing. Y'all say another.

Except, as I've shown, you have misinterpreted the verse.

You haven't shown it. It means, "An elder must be or have been the husband of one wife."

Actually episcopoi is Greek for bishop, not elder. Poimen is the Greek word for elder/pastor


This excludes men who have never been married.

False. See above.

What is so difficult about that for you?

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2018 1:52:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2018 2:32:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 11:26:26 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:35:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

A baseless claim against a groundless and arbitrary assertion. The apostle Paul plainly stated, "A bishop then must be ... the husband of one wife ... One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity, for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" He didn't say "might be", or "I think it's a good idea for now if he", or "for the time being".

Paul rhetorically asked, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Therefore, not only must a bishop be or have been the husband of one wife, but he also must have children. That makes perfect sense: the household is therefore a sort-of "proving ground" for the eldership. It's the one place that a man could demonstrate that he has at least the ability to "rule" others well.

As far as I can tell, the Catholics totally undermine the logic here - and I'm not really sure why. It seems plain enough.


Man, I have to give you credit for one thing, Anna... you're tough! You wouldn't let the Apostle Paul or Jesus to be your bishop.

After all, both were celibate, so had no wife or kids. Even Peter wasn't as strict as you. He called Jesus a bishop in Peter 2:25

You are correct that Jesus Himself would not qualify as an elder in the church, and He is of course never presented as such.

Except Peter called Him a bishop.

"For you had gone astray like sheep, but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls (NAB)."

The word translated guardian here in the NAB is actually not just a bishop; rather, the bishop (Greek, ton episkopon) of your souls.

Which is Greek for Bishop

https://www.biblestudytools.com...


Like I said, you're TOUGH!

... and of course that was said when Jesus was no longer here on earth,

How is that relevant?

and it has no reference whatsoever to a man being an elder in a local congregation of the church.

How is that relevant? Regardless, he calls Him a bishop despite the fact He was never married. How is this so difficult for you to understand?



I'm not "tough" at all. The Apostle Paul gave us the qualification for the office of a bishop, or pastor, or overseer, or elder more than once. It just so happens that certain groups of men are excluded.

True, but single men are not included (as I've proven)

And women are excluded altogether. That's why y'all don't have any 18-year-old popes

We could (in theory)


That is so easy .... soooooooo easy .... that I fail to see why you do not practice it.

Because it's not required.
WisdomOfAges
Posts: 1,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2018 1:53:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
WAKE UP moron.....your bible is a knockoff of William Tyndale's English translation...

Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake by the Roman Church for his work...about 40 years after his MURDER the Church created the King James garbage mostly with Tyndale's translations of the HEBREW and GREEK early versions...Tyndale accomplished this feat by hand..the CHURCH had him murdered in 1536...long before you existed moron...you know NOTHING other than what fools have infested your BRAIN with...disgusting that YOU are this IGNORANT...

Your Bible is a spin off of the great SUMERIAN civilization (2-3000 BC)...LOOK THEM UP...and learn something useful...then look up EPICURUS...a Greek Philosopher 300 BC who has practical and really great concepts for living HEALTHY....

You are hypnotized by some church psychopath that could care less if you are dead or alive..they want to control your mind and life...flush your BIBLE trash down the toilet and start LIVING...
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2018 1:58:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2018 7:14:53 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified. Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men". Sacred tradition would be just as valid as sacred scripture. We know that not all traditions were condemned by Jesus and the Apostles because Paul specifically recommended and required us to follow certain traditions:

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "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" (2 Thess. 3:6).


Doesn't this passage teach that man cannot update the teaching of the word of God through tradition? Thanks!

Good thing for us we don't do that.

So basically, you agree that man's teaching can't update the word of God, but you say that "sacred tradition" can. I would say "God-inspired" tradition, as the distinction given in Matthew 21:23-27 (in this specific case, on John's baptism) was whether a practice is from "heaven" (God) or "men."


That's what we call "Sacred Tradition". Glad we can agree!!

With this in mind, if you're saying that Catholic tradition is not from men but originated from heaven (God), how do you know this?

Because we can trace them (in seed form at least) back to Christ and the Apostles.

What evidence do you have that Catholicism is God-inspired such that it can change Biblical teaching?

It doesn't change Biblical teaching.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2018 9:42:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2018 1:30:43 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:22:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 10:57:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:10:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

I thought so too, since if something is taught, it is a doctrine, and if the doctrine is practiced, then it's a practice.


Not everything taught is doctrine. The Trinity is a doctrine. Protestant pastors wearing choir robes is a practice (not a doctrine), even though it was taught to them.

If they wear special choir robes, and they were taught to do so, then it's a doctrine.


No it's not. A doctrine is a belief like the Trinity, incarnation, virgin birth:

"a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church,"


Doctrine is WHAT we believe. Practices are HOW we practice our faith. How we carry the scriptures to the alter (for example). Doctrines don't change, but practices can.



Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

The argument is that an elder either (1) has to be married to one wife or (2) has to have been married to one wife.


Or ONLY one wife (if married)

Yes, it excludes polygamists just as it excludes those who were never married.

AGAIN, to claim they have to be married would require them to lose their office if their wife died. The fact that the verse says "one" wife wouldn't be necessary if it was requiring bishops to be married. It would have simply said "a bishop shall be married." "One" is clearly a condemnation of polygamy.

What I said was, "They have to (1) be married to one wife, and (2) to have been married to one wife."


Now who's going against what the Bible says??

You are. An otherwise-qualified man whose wife is deceased is still the husband of one wife.

Nowhere in that verse does it say "to HAVE been married to one wife. It has the present tense "must be", not "must have been". "Be" implies present time. You can't say they must be married, and then when you realize your claim is untenable, twist scripture around. Obviously, if they were required to be married, it would say "must be married" period. The only reason to add "to one wife" is solely to forbid polygamy.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men".

Correct. He is condemning those "traditions" which were simply made up by uninspired men, i. e. nobody was able to find them in the scriptures.

Agreed. Good thing we Catholics don't do that.

LOL. Y'all are experts at it! That's why you can't find a single example of an unmarried bishop (or elder), but rather find the statement "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife". What do Catholics say, "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of no wife - past, present, or future." Paul said one thing. Y'all say another.

Except, as I've shown, you have misinterpreted the verse.

You haven't shown it. It means, "An elder must be or have been the husband of one wife."

Actually episcopoi is Greek for bishop, not elder. Poimen is the Greek word for elder/pastor

So what? They both refer to the same office.


This excludes men who have never been married.

False. See above.

What is so difficult about that for you?

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2018 9:48:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2018 1:52:01 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:32:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 11:26:26 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:35:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

A baseless claim against a groundless and arbitrary assertion. The apostle Paul plainly stated, "A bishop then must be ... the husband of one wife ... One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity, for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" He didn't say "might be", or "I think it's a good idea for now if he", or "for the time being".

Paul rhetorically asked, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Therefore, not only must a bishop be or have been the husband of one wife, but he also must have children. That makes perfect sense: the household is therefore a sort-of "proving ground" for the eldership. It's the one place that a man could demonstrate that he has at least the ability to "rule" others well.

As far as I can tell, the Catholics totally undermine the logic here - and I'm not really sure why. It seems plain enough.


Man, I have to give you credit for one thing, Anna... you're tough! You wouldn't let the Apostle Paul or Jesus to be your bishop.

After all, both were celibate, so had no wife or kids. Even Peter wasn't as strict as you. He called Jesus a bishop in Peter 2:25

You are correct that Jesus Himself would not qualify as an elder in the church, and He is of course never presented as such.

Except Peter called Him a bishop.

No, He didn't.


"For you had gone astray like sheep, but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls (NAB)."

The word translated guardian here in the NAB is actually not just a bishop; rather, the bishop (Greek, ton episkopon) of your souls.

Which is Greek for Bishop

https://www.biblestudytools.com...


Like I said, you're TOUGH!

... and of course that was said when Jesus was no longer here on earth,

How is that relevant?

and it has no reference whatsoever to a man being an elder in a local congregation of the church.

How is that relevant? Regardless, he calls Him a bishop despite the fact He was never married. How is this so difficult for you to understand?

He called him "THE bishop" - not simply "a bishop", as you finally pointed out up there. He is also THE only begotten Son. There aren't any other "only begotten Sons".

Thus, I'll grant that (1) if Jesus is literally THE bishop even though He was unmarried, then (2) there aren't any more of them. That which proves too much ... proves nothing, and all you've done here is take Peter's descriptor of Jesus, misapply it, and tried to make a case. Pure sophistry.



I'm not "tough" at all. The Apostle Paul gave us the qualification for the office of a bishop, or pastor, or overseer, or elder more than once. It just so happens that certain groups of men are excluded.

True, but single men are not included (as I've proven)

Boy, you sure have a loose definition of "proven".

And women are excluded altogether. That's why y'all don't have any 18-year-old popes

We could (in theory)


That is so easy .... soooooooo easy .... that I fail to see why you do not practice it.

Because it's not required.

Did Paul say it was required?
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2018 12:12:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2018 1:30:43 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:22:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 10:57:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:10:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:

Now who's going against what the Bible says?? Nowhere in that verse does it say "to HAVE been married to one wife. It has the present tense "must be", not "must have been". "Be" implies present time. You can't say they must be married, and then when you realize your claim is untenable, twist scripture around. Obviously, if they were required to be married, it would say "must be married" period.

A man whose wife is deceased would still be referenced as "the husband of one wife."

The only reason to add "to one wife" is solely to forbid polygamy.

No, it isn't. It is also meant to exclude those who are improperly divorced and those who have never been married in the first place.

Paul: "A bishop then must be ... the husband of one wife ... One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection."

Paul: "the husband of one wife, having faithful children" Titus 1: 6

Catholicism: "A bishop then must be ... celibate ... the husband of no wife ... and one that has no children whatsoever ... for if a man has no wife or children to rule, then he is perfectly suited to take care of the church of God?"

Now ... if you can't see the difference between what Paul said and what Catholicism says, then I'm not sure what to say or do for you.
Kilk1
Posts: 304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2018 3:33:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2018 1:58:12 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 7:14:53 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified. Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men". Sacred tradition would be just as valid as sacred scripture. We know that not all traditions were condemned by Jesus and the Apostles because Paul specifically recommended and required us to follow certain traditions:

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "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" (2 Thess. 3:6).


Doesn't this passage teach that man cannot update the teaching of the word of God through tradition? Thanks!

Good thing for us we don't do that.

So basically, you agree that man's teaching can't update the word of God, but you say that "sacred tradition" can. I would say "God-inspired" tradition, as the distinction given in Matthew 21:23-27 (in this specific case, on John's baptism) was whether a practice is from "heaven" (God) or "men."


That's what we call "Sacred Tradition". Glad we can agree!!

With this in mind, if you're saying that Catholic tradition is not from men but originated from heaven (God), how do you know this?

Because we can trace them (in seed form at least) back to Christ and the Apostles.

What evidence do you have that Catholicism is God-inspired such that it can change Biblical teaching?


It doesn't change Biblical teaching.

I thought Catholics believed that Catholic tradition could change biblical teaching. With the example I gave, 1 Timothy 3:2, the passage begins, "A bishop then must be ..." (NKJV), and then lists a number of qualifications. Notice carefully that a bishop "must be" (not simply "may be") what follows. The first qualification is "blameless," after that is "the husband of one wife." Another thing in the list of things a bishop must be is "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)" (vv. 4-5). Together, these two qualifications require him to be married and to prove that he knows how to manage a family.

Catholic tradition, on the other hand, teaches that a bishop must NOT be the husband of ANY wife, nothing resembling a family man. Another example is the Catholic tradition of referring to priests by the title "Father." In the Bible, however, Jesus says, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9). I could be wrong, but I thought Catholics explain such discrepancies by saying that Catholic tradition can update Scriptural passages.

Do you believe that such things were initially taught in the Bible but have since been updated by Catholic tradition?
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2018 3:46:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2018 3:33:53 AM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 7/1/2018 1:58:12 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 7:14:53 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified. Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men". Sacred tradition would be just as valid as sacred scripture. We know that not all traditions were condemned by Jesus and the Apostles because Paul specifically recommended and required us to follow certain traditions:

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "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" (2 Thess. 3:6).


Doesn't this passage teach that man cannot update the teaching of the word of God through tradition? Thanks!

Good thing for us we don't do that.

So basically, you agree that man's teaching can't update the word of God, but you say that "sacred tradition" can. I would say "God-inspired" tradition, as the distinction given in Matthew 21:23-27 (in this specific case, on John's baptism) was whether a practice is from "heaven" (God) or "men."


That's what we call "Sacred Tradition". Glad we can agree!!

With this in mind, if you're saying that Catholic tradition is not from men but originated from heaven (God), how do you know this?

Because we can trace them (in seed form at least) back to Christ and the Apostles.

What evidence do you have that Catholicism is God-inspired such that it can change Biblical teaching?


It doesn't change Biblical teaching.

I thought Catholics believed that Catholic tradition could change biblical teaching. With the example I gave, 1 Timothy 3:2, the passage begins, "A bishop then must be ..." (NKJV), and then lists a number of qualifications. Notice carefully that a bishop "must be" (not simply "may be") what follows. The first qualification is "blameless," after that is "the husband of one wife." Another thing in the list of things a bishop must be is "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)" (vv. 4-5). Together, these two qualifications require him to be married and to prove that he knows how to manage a family.

Catholic tradition, on the other hand, teaches that a bishop must NOT be the husband of ANY wife, nothing resembling a family man. Another example is the Catholic tradition of referring to priests by the title "Father." In the Bible, however, Jesus says, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9). I could be wrong, but I thought Catholics explain such discrepancies by saying that Catholic tradition can update Scriptural passages.

Do you believe that such things were initially taught in the Bible but have since been updated by Catholic tradition?

That's exactly what they teach, despite the fact that dsjpk5 has skirted around it so far, i. e. he has only very vaguely alluded to it. In this case, Catholic "tradition" (for lack of a better word) doesn't quite stretch all the way back to the plain NT teaching on the qualification of a bishop. To me, it is just another instance of the Catholic Church maneuvering into a position that it deemed expedient and advantageous at the time, then later on calling it a "tradition".
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2018 4:41:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2018 9:42:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2018 1:30:43 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:22:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 10:57:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:10:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

I thought so too, since if something is taught, it is a doctrine, and if the doctrine is practiced, then it's a practice.


Not everything taught is doctrine. The Trinity is a doctrine. Protestant pastors wearing choir robes is a practice (not a doctrine), even though it was taught to them.

If they wear special choir robes, and they were taught to do so, then it's a doctrine.


No it's not. A doctrine is a belief like the Trinity, incarnation, virgin birth:

"a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church,"


Doctrine is WHAT we believe. Practices are HOW we practice our faith. How we carry the scriptures to the alter (for example). Doctrines don't change, but practices can.



Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

The argument is that an elder either (1) has to be married to one wife or (2) has to have been married to one wife.


Or ONLY one wife (if married)

Yes, it excludes polygamists just as it excludes those who were never married.

AGAIN, to claim they have to be married would require them to lose their office if their wife died. The fact that the verse says "one" wife wouldn't be necessary if it was requiring bishops to be married. It would have simply said "a bishop shall be married." "One" is clearly a condemnation of polygamy.

What I said was, "They have to (1) be married to one wife, and (2) to have been married to one wife."


Now who's going against what the Bible says??

You are. An otherwise-qualified man whose wife is deceased is still the husband of one wife.

"Til death to us part"... Marriage ends at death. You're no longer married. The verse says "must be", not "used to be". You're twisting scripture to your own destruction.

Nowhere in that verse does it say "to HAVE been married to one wife. It has the present tense "must be", not "must have been". "Be" implies present time. You can't say they must be married, and then when you realize your claim is untenable, twist scripture around. Obviously, if they were required to be married, it would say "must be married" period. The only reason to add "to one wife" is solely to forbid polygamy.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men".

Correct. He is condemning those "traditions" which were simply made up by uninspired men, i. e. nobody was able to find them in the scriptures.

Agreed. Good thing we Catholics don't do that.

LOL. Y'all are experts at it! That's why you can't find a single example of an unmarried bishop (or elder), but rather find the statement "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife". What do Catholics say, "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of no wife - past, present, or future." Paul said one thing. Y'all say another.

Except, as I've shown, you have misinterpreted the verse.

You haven't shown it. It means, "An elder must be or have been the husband of one wife."

Actually episcopoi is Greek for bishop, not elder. Poimen is the Greek word for elder/pastor

So what? They both refer to the same office.

We're getting off track, but no their not. Same concept, maybe, but not same office.


This excludes men who have never been married.

False. See above.

What is so difficult about that for you?

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2018 4:55:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2018 9:48:03 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2018 1:52:01 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:32:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 11:26:26 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:35:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

A baseless claim against a groundless and arbitrary assertion. The apostle Paul plainly stated, "A bishop then must be ... the husband of one wife ... One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity, for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" He didn't say "might be", or "I think it's a good idea for now if he", or "for the time being".

Paul rhetorically asked, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Therefore, not only must a bishop be or have been the husband of one wife, but he also must have children. That makes perfect sense: the household is therefore a sort-of "proving ground" for the eldership. It's the one place that a man could demonstrate that he has at least the ability to "rule" others well.

As far as I can tell, the Catholics totally undermine the logic here - and I'm not really sure why. It seems plain enough.


Man, I have to give you credit for one thing, Anna... you're tough! You wouldn't let the Apostle Paul or Jesus to be your bishop.

After all, both were celibate, so had no wife or kids. Even Peter wasn't as strict as you. He called Jesus a bishop in Peter 2:25

You are correct that Jesus Himself would not qualify as an elder in the church, and He is of course never presented as such.

Except Peter called Him a bishop.

No, He didn't.


He used the Greek word for bishop, so yes he did. If I'm THE father of my children, I'm a father. In the same way, if Jesus is THE bishop, He's A bishop.


"For you had gone astray like sheep, but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls (NAB)."

The word translated guardian here in the NAB is actually not just a bishop; rather, the bishop (Greek, ton episkopon) of your souls.

Which is Greek for Bishop

https://www.biblestudytools.com...


Like I said, you're TOUGH!

... and of course that was said when Jesus was no longer here on earth,

How is that relevant?

and it has no reference whatsoever to a man being an elder in a local congregation of the church.

How is that relevant? Regardless, he calls Him a bishop despite the fact He was never married. How is this so difficult for you to understand?

He called him "THE bishop" - not simply "a bishop", as you finally pointed out up there. He is also THE only begotten Son. There aren't any other "only begotten Sons".

Irrelevant. If you're the bishop, you're a bishop.

Thus, I'll grant that (1) if Jesus is literally THE bishop even though He was unmarried, then (2) there aren't any more of them. That which proves too much ... proves nothing, and all you've done here is take Peter's descriptor of Jesus, misapply it, and tried to make a case. Pure sophistry.


If He's the, he's a.


I'm not "tough" at all. The Apostle Paul gave us the qualification for the office of a bishop, or pastor, or overseer, or elder more than once. It just so happens that certain groups of men are excluded.

True, but single men are not included (as I've proven)

Boy, you sure have a loose definition of "proven".

Or you have an inability to comprehend what you're reading.

And women are excluded altogether. That's why y'all don't have any 18-year-old popes

We could (in theory)


That is so easy .... soooooooo easy .... that I fail to see why you do not practice it.

The only requirement is it be a Catholic male.

dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2018 5:14:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2018 12:12:29 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2018 1:30:43 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:22:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 10:57:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:10:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:

Now who's going against what the Bible says?? Nowhere in that verse does it say "to HAVE been married to one wife. It has the present tense "must be", not "must have been". "Be" implies present time. You can't say they must be married, and then when you realize your claim is untenable, twist scripture around. Obviously, if they were required to be married, it would say "must be married" period.

A man whose wife is deceased would still be referenced as "the husband of one wife."

The only reason to add "to one wife" is solely to forbid polygamy.

No, it isn't. It is also meant to exclude those who are improperly divorced

Under your definition, they'd still would be husband to one wife (even if they were divorced).

and those who have never been married in the first place.

There would be no reason to say "one" to a single person. It would only need to say "must be a husband".

Paul: "A bishop then must be ... the husband of one wife ... One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection."

Paul: "the husband of one wife, having faithful children" Titus 1: 6

Catholicism: "A bishop then must be ... celibate ... the husband of no wife ... and one that has no children whatsoever ... for if a man has no wife or children to rule, then he is perfectly suited to take care of the church of God?"

Because it wasn't the requirement was condemning polygamy, not demanding marriage. Remember, Peter called Jesus a bishop.

Now ... if you can't see the difference between what Paul said and what Catholicism says, then I'm not sure what to say or do for you.

What I see is you've taken your preconceived notions and forced them into the text with poor interpretations.
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2018 5:28:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2018 3:33:53 AM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 7/1/2018 1:58:12 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 7:14:53 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified. Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

In Matthew 15:1-3, the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples violated established tradition that commands to wash your hands before eating. Such man-made traditions were unimportant, so Jesus replies that their traditions actually violate God's commandments. God's word told them to honor their parents, for example, but their traditions allowed exceptions (vv. 4-6). "Thus," Jesus said, "you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Finally, in verses 7-9, Jesus condemns them as "hypocrites" and says they fulfill the prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. The verse teaches that while people appear outwardly to serve God, their hearts are far from Him as they engage in false worship, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

I can answer both paragraphs here. Jesus isn't condemning ALL traditions here. He's specifically condemning "traditions of men". Sacred tradition would be just as valid as sacred scripture. We know that not all traditions were condemned by Jesus and the Apostles because Paul specifically recommended and required us to follow certain traditions:

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "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" (2 Thess. 3:6).


Doesn't this passage teach that man cannot update the teaching of the word of God through tradition? Thanks!

Good thing for us we don't do that.

So basically, you agree that man's teaching can't update the word of God, but you say that "sacred tradition" can. I would say "God-inspired" tradition, as the distinction given in Matthew 21:23-27 (in this specific case, on John's baptism) was whether a practice is from "heaven" (God) or "men."


That's what we call "Sacred Tradition". Glad we can agree!!

With this in mind, if you're saying that Catholic tradition is not from men but originated from heaven (God), how do you know this?

Because we can trace them (in seed form at least) back to Christ and the Apostles.

What evidence do you have that Catholicism is God-inspired such that it can change Biblical teaching?


It doesn't change Biblical teaching.

I thought Catholics believed that Catholic tradition could change biblical teaching.

Nope.

With the example I gave, 1 Timothy 3:2, the passage begins, "A bishop then must be ..." (NKJV), and then lists a number of qualifications. Notice carefully that a bishop "must be" (not simply "may be") what follows. The first qualification is "blameless," after that is "the husband of one wife." Another thing in the list of things a bishop must be is "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)" (vv. 4-5). Together, these two qualifications require him to be married and to prove that he knows how to manage a family.

Those were prohibiting polygamy, not requiring marriage. We know this because of the use of the word "one". That's what Paul was emphasizing there. If it was requiring marriage, it wouldn't need to say "of one wife". It could simply say "must he a husband".

Catholic tradition, on the other hand, teaches that a bishop must NOT be the husband of ANY wife, nothing resembling a family man.

Again, Paul was condemning polygamy, not requiring one to be married. Are you really saying you wouldn't let Paul or Jesus he your bishop??!!! Man, you're tough!!

Another example is the Catholic tradition of referring to priests by the title "Father." In the Bible, however, Jesus says, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9). I could be wrong, but I thought Catholics explain such discrepancies by saying that Catholic tradition can update Scriptural passages.

Jesus was saying we can't refer to a man in the same way we call God our Father. And I don't need to update scripture... I'll let it prove my point by themselves by showing how often the Bible calls other men "father":

I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10)

"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14"15).

Do you believe that such things were initially taught in the Bible but have since been updated by Catholic tradition?

AGAIN, Tradition doesn't update the Bible.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2018 1:48:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2018 4:41:53 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/1/2018 9:42:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2018 1:30:43 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:22:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 10:57:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:10:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

I thought so too, since if something is taught, it is a doctrine, and if the doctrine is practiced, then it's a practice.


Not everything taught is doctrine. The Trinity is a doctrine. Protestant pastors wearing choir robes is a practice (not a doctrine), even though it was taught to them.

If they wear special choir robes, and they were taught to do so, then it's a doctrine.


No it's not. A doctrine is a belief like the Trinity, incarnation, virgin birth:

"a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church,"


Doctrine is WHAT we believe. Practices are HOW we practice our faith. How we carry the scriptures to the alter (for example). Doctrines don't change, but practices can.



Second, the verse isn't saying a bishop has to be married. It's saying, if they are married, it can be to ONLY one wife. To try and argue otherwise would require a bishop to give up his office if his wife dies.

The argument is that an elder either (1) has to be married to one wife or (2) has to have been married to one wife.


Or ONLY one wife (if married)

Yes, it excludes polygamists just as it excludes those who were never married.

AGAIN, to claim they have to be married would require them to lose their office if their wife died. The fact that the verse says "one" wife wouldn't be necessary if it was requiring bishops to be married. It would have simply said "a bishop shall be married." "One" is clearly a condemnation of polygamy.

What I said was, "They have to (1) be married to one wife, and (2) to have been married to one wife."


Now who's going against what the Bible says??

You are. An otherwise-qualified man whose wife is deceased is still the husband of one wife.

"Til death to us part"... Marriage ends at death. You're no longer married. The verse says "must be", not "used to be". You're twisting scripture to your own destruction.

Listen, this is nothing more than a sophistry on your part, because the truth is that you couldn't care less. If it suits you, I'll say that a bishop must be currently to one wife - no ifs, ands, or buts. That's what the passage literally says.

You say I was "wresting" the scriptures. Very well, then the Catholic Church is simply ignoring them.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2018 1:50:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2018 4:55:10 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/1/2018 9:48:03 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2018 1:52:01 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:32:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 11:26:26 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 5:35:13 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2018 2:08:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/30/2018 1:24:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2018 10:04:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/28/2018 8:20:04 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
Hello! If you are a Roman Catholic, I was wondering how you reconcile Matthew 15:1-9 with the doctrine that Catholic tradition can override the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that "A bishop ... must be ... the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:4, NKJV), but Catholic tradition is supposedly able to revise this teaching.


First of all, this was never a doctrine, but rather a practice, so it can be modified.

It was apparently both.

A baseless claim.

A baseless claim against a groundless and arbitrary assertion. The apostle Paul plainly stated, "A bishop then must be ... the husband of one wife ... One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity, for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" He didn't say "might be", or "I think it's a good idea for now if he", or "for the time being".

Paul rhetorically asked, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Therefore, not only must a bishop be or have been the husband of one wife, but he also must have children. That makes perfect sense: the household is therefore a sort-of "proving ground" for the eldership. It's the one place that a man could demonstrate that he has at least the ability to "rule" others well.

As far as I can tell, the Catholics totally undermine the logic here - and I'm not really sure why. It seems plain enough.


Man, I have to give you credit for one thing, Anna... you're tough! You wouldn't let the Apostle Paul or Jesus to be your bishop.

After all, both were celibate, so had no wife or kids. Even Peter wasn't as strict as you. He called Jesus a bishop in Peter 2:25

You are correct that Jesus Himself would not qualify as an elder in the church, and He is of course never presented as such.

Except Peter called Him a bishop.

No, He didn't.


He used the Greek word for bishop, so yes he did. If I'm THE father of my children, I'm a father. In the same way, if Jesus is THE bishop, He's A bishop.


"For you had gone astray like sheep, but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls (NAB)."

The word translated guardian here in the NAB is actually not just a bishop; rather, the bishop (Greek, ton episkopon) of your souls.

Which is Greek for Bishop

https://www.biblestudytools.com...


Like I said, you're TOUGH!

... and of course that was said when Jesus was no longer here on earth,

How is that relevant?

and it has no reference whatsoever to a man being an elder in a local congregation of the church.

How is that relevant? Regardless, he calls Him a bishop despite the fact He was never married. How is this so difficult for you to understand?

He called him "THE bishop" - not simply "a bishop", as you finally pointed out up there. He is also THE only begotten Son. There aren't any other "only begotten Sons".

Irrelevant. If you're the bishop, you're a bishop.

... and you're the only bishop.


Thus, I'll grant that (1) if Jesus is literally THE bishop even though He was unmarried, then (2) there aren't any more of them. That which proves too much ... proves nothing, and all you've done here is take Peter's descriptor of Jesus, misapply it, and tried to make a case. Pure sophistry.


If He's the, he's a.


I'm not "tough" at all. The Apostle Paul gave us the qualification for the office of a bishop, or pastor, or overseer, or elder more than once. It just so happens that certain groups of men are excluded.

True, but single men are not included (as I've proven)

Boy, you sure have a loose definition of "proven".

Or you have an inability to comprehend what you're reading.

And women are excluded altogether. That's why y'all don't have any 18-year-old popes

We could (in theory)


That is so easy .... soooooooo easy .... that I fail to see why you do not practice it.

The only requirement is it be a Catholic male.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.