Peter Was Celibate After Metting Jesus.

[ironmonk]

St. Luke 5:11

When they brought their boats to the shore, they left everything 2 and followed him.

2They left everything: in Mark 1:16-20 and Matthew 4:18-22 the fishermen who follow Jesus leave their nets and their father; in Luke, they leave everything (see also Luke 5:28; 12:33; 14:33; 18:22), an indication of Luke's theme of complete detachment from material possessions.

"They Left Everything"... it doesn't say 'except his wife'. Some recordings in history say that Peter was a widower... Peter was celibate after he met Jesus.

On a side note....

St. Luke 5:1 1While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret.

The word of God is not just written down, but it is spoken. Written down is only part of the Word of God.

1 [1-11] This incident has been transposed from his source, Mark 1:16-20, which places it immediately after Jesus makes his appearance in Galilee. By this transposition Luke uses this example of Simon's acceptance of Jesus to counter the earlier rejection of him by his hometown people, and since several incidents dealing with Jesus' power and authority have already been narrated, Luke creates a plausible context for the acceptance of Jesus by Simon and his partners. Many commentators have noted the similarity between the wondrous catch of fish reported here (Luke 4:4-9) and the post-resurrectional appearance of Jesus in John 21:1-11. There are traces in Luke's story that the post-resurrectional context is the original one: in Luke 4:8 Simon addresses Jesus as Lord (a post-resurrectional title for Jesus--see Luke 24:34; Acts 2:36--that has been read back into the historical ministry of Jesus) and recognizes himself as a sinner (an appropriate recognition for one who has denied knowing Jesus--Luke 22:54-62). As used by Luke, the incident looks forward to Peter's leadership in Luke--Acts (Luke 6:14; 9:20; 22:31-32; 24:34; Acts 1:15; 2:14-40; 10:11-18; 15:7-12) and symbolizes the future success of Peter as fisherman (Acts 2:41).

God Bless,

ironmonk

Edited September 4, 2003 by ironmonk

[mustbenothing]

I'm not certain how to deal with the implications of 1 Corinthians 9:5. However, it doesn't seem like a highly important topic to me.

(ironmonk) The word of God is not just written down, but it is spoken. Written down is only part of the Word of God.

(Me) Yes. And?

[vianney]

and tradition is passed down orally which most protestant faiths are missing out on.

[ironmonk]

(ironmonk) The word of God is not just written down, but it is spoken. Written down is only part of the Word of God.

(Me) Yes. And?

muste,

All of my posts are directed to you, and I expect an answer from you everytime because you are the only one on the board.

I'm not certain how to deal with the implications of 1 Corinthians 9:5. However, it doesn't seem like a highly important topic to me.

1 Cor 9:5 does not say that Peter remained sexually active... Many bishops in the early Church gave us sexual relations once they became bishops...

We are not animals that must mate as if we were in heat.

The context of those verses is as follows:

[4-12a] Apparently some believe that Paul is not equal to the other apostles and therefore does not enjoy equal privileges. His defense on this point (here and in 1 Cor 9:13-14) reinforces the assertion of his apostolic character in 1 Cor 9:2. It consists of a series of analogies from natural equity (7) and religious custom (1 Cor 9:13) designed to establish his equal right to support from the churches (1 Cor 9:4-6,11-12a); these analogies are confirmed by the authority of the law (1 Cor 9:8-10) and of Jesus himself (1 Cor 9:14).

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Dave]

(ironmonk) The word of God is not just written down, but it is spoken. Written down is only part of the Word of God.

(Me) Yes. And?

Well, let's look at what the Bible has to say. I included this info in another thread, but I'll gladly rehash it, as I'm feeling rather patient.

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For Protestants to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century and all been committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isaiah 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isaiah 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

The early Christians followed oral tradition:

Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)

Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Gree, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.

Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.

John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul commands us to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity from tradition). The Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.

2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.

1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been "entrusted" to you. The word "entrusted" is "paratheke" which means a "deposit." Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is "tradition," or the handing on of apostolic teaching.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).

Jesus and the apostles also relied on oral tradition:

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

[Jake Huether]

and tradition is passed down orally which most protestant faiths are missing out on.

Isn't most of our "oral" tradition documented in writings anyway? Even though the canon was "closed", oral tradition still was documented. It wasn't inspired writing. It was inspired "oral" teaching, yet it was still written down.

Even though we recognize part of the Word of God as Tradition, doesn't mean it is passed on like one Pope wispering these "secretes" to his successor as he dies. These Traditions are WELL documented and historically founded.

[vianney]

Isn't most of our "oral" tradition documented in writings anyway? Even though the canon was "closed", oral tradition still was documented. It wasn't inspired writing. It was inspired "oral" teaching, yet it was still written down.

Chapter Two, Article Two of the catechism check it out it says basically word for word what i said. You are right the oral tradition was written down but the main point is that most of it was orally done for awhile THEN written down. We should treat tradition with the same equality as scripture they are both equally important in the churches eyes.

[Jake Huether]

I wrote this in another thread, but I thought it would be appropriate here. If the Bible is to be the sole rule of faith for us, that means that it is pretty darn significant part of our salvation! right? Yet, Not only does Jesus make no mention of writing anything down, but his Apostles don't even write anything for several decades later. And even more... Those writings aren't contained under one cover for three more CENTURIES!

So, if the Bible is so important, then we must ask ourselves: Why did Christ waste his time TALKING to the Apostles after he accomplished his mission to die for our sins? I mean 40 days! That's more than a month. Jesus should have spent that time going over the details of the Bible with his Apostles! That way we wouldn't have had to wait 400 years. Or even better... If the way in which we were to be given the good news was in writing, then why did Jesus walk around and preach for his 3 year ministry. Why didn't he just hatch out the Bible with the 12? It just doesn't make any sense. If the Bible was so important as to contain ALL that we need to be saved, then why was it that Christ didn't even write a single thing!?

EVEN further on the point... If the Word of God was to be spread by writing, why is it that only HALF of the Apostles wrote anything! Is what they taught by mouth somehow not as important as what Paul taught to his church through writing?

Just makes no sense that the Bible would contain EVERYTHING.

[vianney]

ha ha i know i am not disagreeing with you..i agree totally

[Jake Huether]

Chapter Two, Article Two of the catechism check it out it says basically word for word what i said. You are right the oral tradition was written down but the main point is that most of it was orally done for awhile THEN written down. We should treat tradition with the same equality as scripture they are both equally important in the churches eyes.

Oh no doubt. I was simply making it clear for our Protestant brothers that "oral" tradition doesn't mean like Catholic Popes play the whisper game. It is established teaching that has DEEP roots and is understood by all Catholics. It is taught and open and documented. Our Traditions are established, they aren't simply a secret thing that Popes pass on to eachother. Or some man made tradition like what is referenced in Scripture. The Traditions that we hold are the same ones that Paul urged us to hold fast to.

[vianney]

and that early church fathers started. What I dont understand is that EVERY church follows some type of religion so I dont see how protestants can condem tradition,

[Damien]

Instead of Orally, why didn't Jesus just record a 5 disc CD. He could have sold them and paid off his assasins.

:blink:

[Dave]

Instead of Orally, why didn't Jesus just record a 5 disc CD. He could have sold them and paid off his assasins.

:lol:

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) Yes. And?

(ironmonk) All of my posts are directed to you, and I expect an answer from you everytime because you are the only one on the board.

(Me) I'll start responding to you again, but will more-or-less ignore any and all arguments that have already been made (as such argumentation should continue in the relevant thread), as well as all cut 'n' pastes.

(Previous) I'm not certain how to deal with the implications of 1 Corinthians 9:5. However, it doesn't seem like a highly important topic to me.

(ironmonk) 1 Cor 9:5 does not say that Peter remained sexually active... Many bishops in the early Church gave us sexual relations once they became bishops...

We are not animals that must mate as if we were in heat.

(Me) But 1 Cor 9:5 does say that apostles (whom you consider to be the forerunners of bishops) had the right to take along a believing wife. The modern Catholic Church denies such a right to bishops. I have no idea whether or not to assume that Peter actually did take with him a believing wife (which seems to be implied), or if he just had the right to do so. Whatever the case, as I said before, I don't consider it too important of a question.

(ironmonk) The context of those verses is as follows:

[4-12a] Apparently some believe that Paul is not equal to the other apostles and therefore does not enjoy equal privileges. His defense on this point (here and in 1 Cor 9:13-14) reinforces the assertion of his apostolic character in 1 Cor 9:2. It consists of a series of analogies from natural equity (7) and religious custom (1 Cor 9:13) designed to establish his equal right to support from the churches (1 Cor 9:4-6,11-12a); these analogies are confirmed by the authority of the law (1 Cor 9:8-10) and of Jesus himself (1 Cor 9:14).

(Me) I don't see how this is relevant. I'm interpreting the verse as suggesting that a fundamental right of an apostle was to take along a believing wife if he so desired.

[Dave]

(Previous) Yes. And?

(ironmonk) All of my posts are directed to you, and I expect an answer from you everytime because you are the only one on the board.

(Me) I'll start responding to you again, but will more-or-less ignore any and all arguments that have already been made (as such argumentation should continue in the relevant thread), as well as all cut 'n' pastes.

More cop-outs.

(Previous) I'm not certain how to deal with the implications of 1 Corinthians 9:5. However, it doesn't seem like a highly important topic to me.

(ironmonk) 1 Cor 9:5 does not say that Peter remained sexually active... Many bishops in the early Church gave us sexual relations once they became bishops...

We are not animals that must mate as if we were in heat.

(Me) But 1 Cor 9:5 does say that apostles (whom you consider to be the forerunners of bishops) had the right to take along a believing wife. The modern Catholic Church denies such a right to bishops. I have no idea whether or not to assume that Peter actually did take with him a believing wife (which seems to be implied), or if he just had the right to do so. Whatever the case, as I said before, I don't consider it too important of a question.

First of all, we are the CATHOLIC CHURCH! We are NOT the Catholic Church! Please have enough respect for us to call the Church by its proper name.

In addition, in the Church's early centuries, there were many bishops and even popes who were married. But no, the Church doesn't deny bishops the right to marry; they freely choose not to marry once they choose to become priests. Besides, it's a Church DISCIPLINE that priests can't be married, not a DOCTRINE. The former can be changed, but the latter can't. But anyway, St. Paul was celibate and a bishop, and yet you don't seem to have any objections to that!

(ironmonk) The context of those verses is as follows:

[4-12a]Apparently some believe that Paul is not equal to the other apostles and therefore does not enjoy equal privileges. His defense on this point (here and in 1 Cor 9:13-14) reinforces the assertion of his apostolic character in 1 Cor 9:2. It consists of a series of analogies from natural equity (7) and religious custom (1 Cor 9:13) designed to establish his equal right to support from the churches (1 Cor 9:4-6,11-12a); these analogies are confirmed by the authority of the law (1 Cor 9:8-10) and of Jesus himself (1 Cor 9:14).

(Me) I don't see how this is relevant. I'm interpreting the verse as suggesting that a fundamental right of an apostle was to take along a believing wife if he so desired.

So what makes you think that your interpretation is correct? Why couldn't you possibly be wrong?

Edited September 17, 2003 by Dave

[ironmonk]

I'll start responding to you again,

Oh goody...

but will more-or-less ignore any and all arguments that have already been made (as such argumentation should continue in the relevant thread), as well as all cut 'n' pastes.

You've been ignoring all of our arguements anyway. You've been proven wrong time and time again, you do not accept it. The Church is right, end of story.

For what you say to be true, then there would be no God.

I'm not going to waste my time with throwing pearls among swine or throwing stones at dogs that bark along the way.

The only interaction that I would be interested with you would be for you to actually try the Challenge... with the rules given, not your rules... If you want your rules, then you can't do it...

You must use the Catechism, bible, and ECF writings to take the Challenge, anything else proves my point that no man can prove the Catholic Church wrong.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Jake Huether]

edited...

cool! ;)

[Dave]

heheheh... You got them switched around... 

The former (Discipline) can be changed. The latter (Doctrine) can't be changed.

I know you know... But I wanted to make sure others know. 

That's what I get for typing stuff in too fast!

I went and edited my post. Thanks, man, for bringing it to my attention. :D

[mustbenothing]

(vianney) and tradition is passed down orally which most protestant faiths are missing out on.

(Me) Please demonstrate this, rather than just asserting it

I'm again curious as to whether or not you actually wrote this, Dave.

(Dave) Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

(Me) Saying that "it took 400 years to compile the Bible" is false. It took 400 years for there to be a definitive council on the canon list, sure. However, the writings of many early fathers and texts like the Muratorian Canon teach us that all the NT letters were collected in the 2nd century, if not earlier (and, of course, the OT books were already collected).

Yes, it took 1,000 years to invent the printing press, but the Bible was still copied time and time again to be provided to all possible.

Yes, of course the Word of God was primarily communicated to the laity by the bishops. However, that does not mean that the Word of God was primarily communited to the bishops by word of mouth!

(Dave) Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

(Me) I don't see how this is an exegetical argument for your position. Please outline its premises and inferences. It just seems to be a re-statement of the extra-Biblical argument you offered above.

(Dave) Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

(Me) Whether or not Jesus did not command them to write down anything, He certainly quoted from the Scripture many times, and the Holy Spirit later moved them to write down the NT Scripture (2 Peter 1:21).

Additionally, the conclusion that the Scripture is not the post-apostolic man of God's only infallible rule of faith does not follow from the fact that the Gospel is often transmitted by orally preaching! Surely that is a non-sequitur.

(Dave) Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

(Me) You are right to say that the apostles were His witnesses in a unique, authoritative manner. However, I don't see where you got from this passage that apostolic authority and witness was passed down through apostolic succession. The Bible indicates that the apostles were a foundational phenomenon in the Church (Ephesians 2:20), having once-for-all laid the foundation upon which the saints now build.

(Dave) Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

(Me) Same error as above; you're assuming that if the truth is ever transmitted through fallible, oral preaching, then the truth cannot be fundamentally grounded in the infallible rule of faith that is the Bible.

(Dave) Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.

(Me) Yes, and they stopped that after they had laid the foundation of the Church, as already argued.

(Dave) Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."

(Me) Honestly, do you understand the Protestant position? Sola Scriptura has never taught that the only communication between people should be in the written Scripture. Rather, it teaches that the sole infallible rule of faith for the post-apostolic man of God is the Scripture!

(Dave) Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

(Me) Yes, of course.

(Dave) Rom 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

(Me) Yes, because we preach the Gospel on the basis of the infallible rule of faith that is the Scripture. Fallible, oral methods of transmitting infallible truths based upon the Scripture do not become infallible rules of faith, or usurp the place of their foundation.

(Dave) 1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For Protestants to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

(Me) Yes, and what is that word? The Gospel! Surely you cannot claim that the Gospel is not taught in the Scripture! Therefore, you must demonstrate that we have an infallible deposit of oral tradition which goes above and beyond that which is now recorded in the Scripture. Tell me, if you received oral tradition straight from Jesus and the Apostles: What is one sentence that Jesus or the Apostles uttered that is not recorded for us in the Scripture? Surely the Pope would have let us know, if he holds some rule of faith other than the Scripture which is a perfect preservation of the words of Christ and the Apostles!

(Dave) Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

(Me) Yep.

(Dave) Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.

(Me) Uh-huh.

(Dave) Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

(Me) Yes.

(Dave) 1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

(Me) Yes, and?

(Dave) 2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

(Me) Did this pattern of sound words include something that is not recorded in the Scripture? Were, say, the Marian dogmas included in them? If so, why don't we have people teaching the Assumption of Mary in the first few centuries? Or, which seems the altogether more likely case, was this pattern of sound words laid up for us in the infallible Scripture, the pattern of sound words once-for-all delievered to the saints?

(Dave) 2 Tim 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

(Me) Nope, it doesn't. Do you understand the Protestant doctrine?

(Dave) Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from apostles.

(Me) The preaching of the Gospel, which is now recorded for us in the Scripture.

(Dave) 1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century and all been committed to Scripture.

(Me) Yes, the Gospel ("this word is the good news that was preached to you") continues. How on Earth does that mean that the Pope received the oral tradition of the Marian dogmas?? The Marian dogmas are not the Gospel!

(Dave) 2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

(Me) That is, unless he wished to forever remind them by leaving the Scripture, a fixed corpus! One can hardly make such a claim about the Roman Catholic view of Tradition. Perhaps it is the unanimous consent of the early fathers, perhaps it is partim-partim, perhaps it is material sufficiency, perhaps it is development of doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church cannot claim to hold a fixed corpus of oral teaching passed down from the apostles, for she cannot even agree on how to define "tradition"!

(Dave) 2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

(Me) Yes, people talk to other people. I don't see how this is relevant.

(Dave) Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

(Me) But his oral teaching was based on the fixed corpus of that which was written.

(Dave) Isaiah 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

(Me) I'm waiting for a relevant argument. There have only been three in this list so far, unless I've lost count.

(Dave) Isaiah 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

(Me) Isaiah 59:20-21

20 "And a Redeemer will come to Zion,

to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the Lord.

21 "And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the Lord: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the Lord, "from this time forth and forevermore."

Isaiah 59 teaches that God will maintain His covenant with His people, lifting them up through a fuller pouring-out of His Spirit, though Israel apostatized. The presence of a teaching authority has been inserted into, not drawn out of, this passage of covenantal sanctification.

(Dave) Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

(Me) And?

(Dave) Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

(Me) Yes, the Chruch is to guard the deposit entrusted to her -- the Gospel and the Scripture. I have no idea how this gives the man of God an infallible rule of faith other than the Scripture in the post-apostolic era.

(Dave) The early Christians followed oral tradition:

Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)

(Me) It is interesting that you will later claim that these Pharisees were in the authoritative seat of Moses. If they were in the seat of Moses and could err so greatly, how can we trust the Pope to be infallible, who is also in the seat of Moses (you say)?

I would also note that the Scripture was the standard by which they were declared wrong -- not oral tradition.

(Dave) Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

(Me) Acts 17:11 indicates that we would be praised for checking apostolic teaching against the Scripture. According to the Roman Catholic Church, we would be condemned for private interpretation.

(Dave) Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Gree, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.

(Me) Because they were in the apostolic era. Do you understand the Protestant doctrine?

(Dave) Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.

(Me) History often sheds light on the Scripture's teaching, as with Acts 20:7.

(Dave) John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

(Me) Non-sequitur. He prays that those who convert due to their preaching be secured. He does not pray that the mysterious apostolic tradition they pass on through the Roman Catholic Church would be infallibly preserved and taught.

(Dave) 1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

(Me) Yes, of course. This was during the apostolic era. I would appreciate a greater ratio of interaction with my actual position.

(Dave) Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.

(Me) Yes, Paul was a great example. And?

(Dave) 2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul commands us to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

(Me) Yes, for apostolic authority, oral and written communications were on par with each other. This is contrary to the badgering of Scripture you performed earlier in this post. However, I still have no idea how it interacts with my position, which I have outlined for you a few dozen times. I'm still waiting to see where the proof is that this tradition was something other than the Gospel and other basics now stored up in the Scripture, or where this oral tradition was to be a surviving rule of faith to be added on top of the Scripture.

(Dave) 2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity from tradition). The Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church.

(Me) Let's suppose for a moment that there was as robust a conception of oral tradition, apostolic succession, and papal authority as you claim. Now, let's suppose that the canonical list was included in that oral tradition, as you claim here. Why, then, were there any disagreements on the canonical list at all in the early Church? After all, a quick talk with the bishop of Rome should have fixed all of that!

(Dave) Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son),

(Me) These were argued Scripturally by the early Church.

(Dave) the assumption of Mary,

(Me) Then why did belief in it take so long to appear?

(Dave) and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

(Me) Of course! The question, however, is whether this comes to us through fallible historical sources, or whether it comes from an infallible deposit of oral teaching passed down from generation to generation.

(Dave) 2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.

2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.

(Me) Yes, they were to follow the Apostles' tradition of not being idle. I have no idea how that is an infallible oral deposit acting as a rule of faith on top of Scripture and delivered by apostolic succession through Roman Catholic leadership.

(Dave) 1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been "entrusted" to you. The word "entrusted" is "paratheke" which means a "deposit." Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.

(Me) Actually, "deposit" and "entrusted" are different words, the former being a noun and the second a verb. The question is, however, if the deposit entrusted to Timothy lies in the infallible rule of faith that is the Scripture, as Paul earlier indicated in this letter (2 Tim 3:16-17), or if it is some deposit of oral tradition which goes far above and beyond the Gospel and other basics.

(Dave) 2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is "tradition," or the handing on of apostolic teaching.

(Me) Yes, the Word of God comes through fallible humans to other fallible humans by word of mouth. Again, how does this mean that the Scripture is not the sole infallible rule of faith for the post-apostolic man of God?

(Dave) 2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).

(Me) The fact that oral teaching (not tradition) is the instrument by which Timothy received the Gospel does not turn it into an infallible rule of faith! Certainly no one thinks that every priest's sermon is infallible!

(Dave) Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

(Me) Which was not in the post-apostolic era.

(Dave) Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

(Me) This same "seat of Moses" (which was actually a means by which Jesus mocked them) corrupted true teaching and led to the horrid perversion of doctrine present in 1st-century Judaism. Shall we conclude, then, that the same may happen to the Pope?

(Dave) John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

(Me) Yes, which in no way means that that oral tradition is an infallible rule of faith!

(Dave) Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

(Me) Yes, people often hear the words of other people and repeat them.

(Dave) 1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

(Me) I have no idea where Paul here appeals to apostolic tradition.

(Dave) 1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

(Me) Exodus 17:6

Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink." And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.

I'd be interested in seeing documentation of such an oral tradition. Even if it was, though, I still don't really see how it is relevant. I never said that all there is to know is stored up in the Scripture. I said that the only infallible rule of faith needed by the post-apostolic man of God is the Scripture.

(Dave) Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

(Me) Yes, traditions exist. How does that make them infallible rules of faith for the post-apostolic man of God?

(Dave) Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

(Me) Yes, of course.

(Dave) Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

(Me) Yep.

(Dave) Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

(Me) Correct.

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) I'll start responding to you again, but will more-or-less ignore any and all arguments that have already been made (as such argumentation should continue in the relevant thread), as well as all cut 'n' pastes.

(Dave) More cop-outs.

(Me) I have no idea how. Would you rather me cut 'n' paste forty-five pages of Protestant drivel, and expect you to answer it point-by-point?

(Previous) But 1 Cor 9:5 does say that apostles (whom you consider to be the forerunners of bishops) had the right to take along a believing wife. The modern Catholic Church denies such a right to bishops. I have no idea whether or not to assume that Peter actually did take with him a believing wife (which seems to be implied), or if he just had the right to do so. Whatever the case, as I said before, I don't consider it too important of a question.

(Dave) First of all, we are the CATHOLIC CHURCH! We are NOT the Catholic Church! Please have enough respect for us to call the Church by its proper name.

(Me) I've already discussed this nomenclature with dUSt. I originally said "Rome," because Roman Catholic apologists use it. However, dUSt found it offensive, so I asked if "Catholic Church" would be acceptable. He OKed it.

(Dave) In addition, in the Church's early centuries, there were many bishops and even popes who were married. But no, the Church doesn't deny bishops the right to marry; they freely choose not to marry once they choose to become priests. Besides, it's a Church DISCIPLINE that priests can't be married, not a DOCTRINE. The former can be changed, but the latter can't.

(Me) No, the Roman Catholic Church does not allow bishops to marry, nor does she allow married people to become bishops except in extreme cases. Therefore, she has taken away the right to carry along a believing wife. I haven't made any judgment on whether or not this is a wrong thing to do, but I have said that I don't see how Paul could defend his apostolicity on such grounds (meaning that the right to marry is basic to being an apostle) if modern-day bishops are supposed to be the successors of the Apostles, yet they lack such a right.

(Dave) But anyway, St. Paul was celibate and a bishop, and yet you don't seem to have any objections to that!

(Me) No, but that does not mean that he lacked the right to do so.

(Previous) I don't see how this is relevant. I'm interpreting the verse as suggesting that a fundamental right of an apostle was to take along a believing wife if he so desired.

(Dave) So what makes you think that your interpretation is correct? Why couldn't you possibly be wrong?

(Me) I could certainly be wrong. However, nothing that ironmonk posted took a position on whether I was right or wrong at all.

(ironmonk) You must use the Catechism, bible, and ECF writings to take the Challenge, anything else proves my point that no man can prove the Catholic Church wrong.

(Me) Already done. I quoted Clement of Rome, the Bible, and the Catechism. That meets your standards, even though they are unjustified standards.