When there is/are contradiction/s between your Tradition and the Scripture, which shall prevail?

I know this for a fact as written in I John 1:3-4. Everything happened first before they wrote it.

But you missed the point: if the admonition is only applicable to the book of Revelation, then, adding it to something or adding something to it (addition is commutative), will be a violation. Then why is it added to the Bible?

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, NONE shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

I'll pass commenting on the traditions you addressed because I don't want to make the issue broader but I will comment on them on due time.

Since this is obviously a question regarding the "Church" (apparently) versus Scripture, we have to determine what the Church is, and is not. Show us which group most closely fits the picture of the Church shown in action in the book of Acts. Just because someone says "this is the Church" does not make it so. If you cannot show that your denomination, group, fellowship, etc. Matches the profile of that first church, then there is no reason for us to value its teaching, rituals, etc. Because they can (and do) change with time. The Bible does not change unless men deliberately or ignorantly alter it. I cannot accept a man's word that is contridictory to Scripture.

In message #88 I post many.

On the other hand, no one has ever shown any Scripture validating the doctrine of Scripture alone.

No. It is right there in Scripture, several times:

The doctrine of Scripture alone states that Scripture alone is the rule of faith.

Yet, Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

The doctrine of Scripture alone says that Scripture is man's only authority.

Yet Scripture says that the Church is also man's authority (Matt 18:17).

So, the doctrine of Scripture alone contradicts Scripture.

Agreed. But you keep accusing us of going beyond what is written. On the other hand, it seems to me it is Protestants who have actually added man made traditions to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and removed entire books from the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

That is a false dichotomy created by Protestants. It is not the Church vs Scripture.

The Church promotes and teaches the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture.
The Scriptures are evidence that Jesus Christ established a Church to Teach and guide mankind.

The Church loves Scripture.

This is definitely a good exercise.

Great idea:

Although the Catholic Church was not known as the "Catholic" Church until 100 years after the Birth of our Lord, ....

Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D. ).

...it is the Catholic Church alone which is described in Scripture:

Daily Mass:
Acts Of Apostles 2 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers....

Holy Eucharist:
1 Corinthians 10 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

One Shepherd:
John 21 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

One Lord, One faith, one baptism,
Ephesians 4 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

One doctrine:
Romans 16 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

Justification by faith and works
James 2 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

James 2 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without works; and I will show thee, by works, my faith.

Prayer to Saints:
Luke 16 24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.

Suffering to expiate sin:
1 Peter 4 1 Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the flesh, hath ceased from sins:

Infallible Church:
1 Timothy 3 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Authoritative Church:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Teaching Church:
Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

And there are many more. The Catholic Church is the one and only Bible Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Word of God does not contradict Itself. The Word of God is contained in Tradition and Scripture.

On the other hand, when people come up with novel interpretations of Scripture, such as Luther did when he proposed Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, we look to the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture.

In so doing we see that there are no such Traditional teachings in all of Christendom until the advent of Luther and we see that Luther contradicted Scripture in proposing them (Matt 18:17 Church as authority and James 2:20 Faith and works.)

Correct.

Let us divide the word of God rightly.

2 Corinthians 3 6 Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.

If you take this admonition overly literally, you kill the meaning. It is like my saying to you, "it is raining cats and dogs" and you responding, "but I see drops of water."

When St. John admonished that nothing should be added or taken from his book (i.e. Revelations), he meant that the book should not be changed or perverted.

Adding Revelations to the Bible is not in any way perverting or changing the meaning of the book but it is a recognition that it is the Word of God.

You underlined and bolded NONE and undelined the words "shall want her mate" as though that were an answer. What does this mean to you?

Good idea. I suggest you begin a question on each topic. That way we can investigate thoroughly.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You and I have been through these before and in context, none of these support these claims. I do not intend to start having 10 page posts by going through all of these at once, but if you wish, we could go through them one at a time and examine them from a scriptural context.

That can indeed be done, but does not need to be done. The reason is that we both accept the whole of scripture as insp[ire by God, therefore we do not need to further establish that. The difference is that you have chosen to accept input external to the Bible and therefore its equivalency to scripture need to be validated - leaviong the onus on you to establish it equivalency. It is not logical; to assume that everything is scriptural until proven otherwise.

Nowhere does this say that we are to go beyond scripture, and this is not referring to any denomination.

The critical question here is - what is the church? A denomination or the body of Christ?

None of these verses tell us that we are to establish doctrine based upon what any church says. You are reading that into these passages. On the other hand, scripture does say not to go beyond ehat is written.

I am not a protestant, but I am unaware of a protestant denomination removing any books from the Bible. I am aware that one denomination (RCC) added books which contain passages contradicting scripture at the Council of Trent. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of.

[quote=De Maria]

Great idea:

Although the Catholic Church was not known as the "Catholic" Church until 100 years after the Birth of our Lord, ....

Yes, we have. Obviously, I believe they do.

That would be wonderful.

Your logic fails, in my opinion, for two reasons:

First of all, Sola Scriptura means Scripture ALONE. And that certainly needs to be proven. Especially since Scripture never claims sole authority but points to both Tradition and the Church as authoritative as well.

Second, it is Scripture which establishes the equivalency of Tradition. It is Scripture which says that we must keep the Traditions of Word and Epistle. It is Scripture which calls the oral teaching of the Apostles, the Word of God.

So, I accept the responsibility to prove that the Scripture points to more than one authority:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

1 Timothy 3 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Thats just a few, there are more.

Now, please provide the Scripture which says that the Scriptures "Alone" are our authority.

Nor does the Church teach that we are to go beyond Scripture. The Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are one word of God:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97 (192 bytes ) preview document matches
"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God,
URL: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97

It is the body of Christ. That is why it is authoritative.

The doctrine of Scripture alone certainly goes beyond what is written.

No. Jesus Christ Himself used the Septuagint version of the Bible. This includes the Deuterocanonicals. A total of 46 books.

The Church accepted this version from Jesus Christ.

The remnant of Jews who despised Jesus removed the 7 non Hebrew books from their Scriptures. They accepted only the 39 books written originally in Hebrew.

Luther, in his zeal against the Catholic Church, sided with Christ's enemies. It is Luther who discarded 7 books from the Christian Bible which had stood for 12 centuries before he was born:
The Canon of the Bible

Sincerely,

De Maria

I don't understand your message.

Since you are addressing it to the point that the Church was called Catholic as recently as 100 years after the birth of Christ, I assume you think that this somehow contradicts that statement.

But I don't see how. Please explain.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Look at 2 Tim 3:16 and tell me where you find tradition in that. Indeed, you will never find your denomination's tradition given any authority anywhere in scripture.

Note that this refers to what the Apostles taught. And then what does it say?

2 Thess 2:15-16
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
NKJV

Note that the same traditions that they speak of were taught verbally by the Apostles and in writing. We no longer have the Apostles, therefore we have that word in writing alone.

Nothing about tradition here.

Nothing about tradition here.

Your denomination teaches that. That is what scripture refers to here:

Mark 7:9
9 And He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
NKJV

I note that you avoided the question. But if you say that the word "church" refers to the body of Christ, then it is most certainly not your denomination or any denomination.

Note that he only used scripture when dealing with doctrine. Many Bibles contain other books as reference material - that does not make them canonical.