It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tradition vs. Biblical Doctrine

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I've noticed that many churches have started teaching tradition as if it is actual Biblical doctrine.

1) No women in the pulpit. Some churches teach this as doctrine even though there were no "churches" with pulpits in them at the time the Bible was written.

2) No sex before marriage. The Greek word for "fornication" refers to ritual prostitution in connection with the worshiping of other gods. The English means sex before marriage. The NT was written in Greek and not English.

Can you think of any other traditions that are not based on the Bible, but the traditions and misunderstandings of men?




posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MinisterFortson
 


For your second one, that's IN the Bible in the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 22 says what should be done to a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night:


20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.


Deuteronomy 22



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MinisterFortson
 



1) No women in the pulpit. Some churches teach this as doctrine even though there were no "churches" with pulpits in them at the time the Bible was written.

Take a look at the pastoral epistles and then come back and say that.


2) No sex before marriage. The Greek word for "fornication" refers to ritual prostitution in connection with the worshiping of other gods. The English means sex before marriage. The NT was written in Greek and not English.

The Greek word porneia refers to any sexual misconduct, not just ritual prostitution.


Can you think of any other traditions that are not based on the Bible, but the traditions and misunderstandings of men?

It's not really an important thing, but Christianity is often associated with the Latin cross which looks like a lower case t. Jesus was probably crucified on a cross that had a capital T shape. Again, it's not really an important thing; what is important is the work what was done on the cross.

ETA: Just another word about the second point: There are several Greek words that are in the same family as porneia is and they all carry the same idea(s). Yes, they can mean harlotry and things of that sort as the OP brought forth, but they can also carry a range of meanings beyond that, from prostitution, to adultery, to fornication. These would all be included in the basket of what is prohibited when "not porneiaing" is commanded.

[edit on 7/17/2010 by octotom]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
From Strong's Concordance

4202
Fornication
1) illicit sexual intercourse

a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

2) metaph. the worship of idols

a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

1608
Fornication
1) to go a whoring, "give one's self over to fornication"


2181
fornication
1) to commit fornication, be a harlot, play the harlot

a) (Qal)

1) to be a harlot, act as a harlot, commit fornication

2) to commit adultery

3) to be a cult prostitute

4) to be unfaithful (to God) (fig.)

b) (Pual) to play the harlot

c) (Hiphil)

1) to cause to commit adultery

2) to force into prostitution

3) to commit fornication


To be harlot is an unmarried person, to go a whoring would be with people you are not married to,

You can not use a dictionary of today to define words that were written hundreds of years ago.........Many today believe that words change meanings this is far from true........like God they are unchanging......


1 Corinthians

[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Seams there were churches in the beginning as there is a statement about women speaking in church. It appears it is doctrine.

Woman was the first sinner and the cause of Adam to follow as he knew that he should not eat of the fruit yet he listened to his wife and did so?

Now as for traditions that are still held today yes one would be tithes that was an Old Testament practice it is no where in the New Testament


2 Corinthians 9:

[7] Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

the part on necessity is abolishing tithes.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MinisterFortson
 


the "rapture"

this is probably going to be argued against by those that believe in the rapture, using the standard formula of various verses from different places, combined to make their point.

HOWEVER, there is one problem that i see with the idea that Jesus is going to come and take all the "good" people who "believe" out of the way before all hell literally breaks loose and makes life perpetual misery for their neighbors that supposedly refused somehow to believe or otherwise forfeited their right to avoid suffering...

Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. he said that doing that, as well as loving GOD with your whole being are the complete law and that all the other things rest upon those two commandments.

so, if one is "saved" but others are not, then it follows that there must be some sort of requirement besides believing, because even the demons believe and shudder, according to the bible.

so it seems apparent to me that LOVE is the thing that counts.

and so one day, i did a thought experiment and imagined myself being scooped up in the arms of Jesus and lifted up to fly away from the earth to a place without misery or tears.

i then imagined myself looking down at my mom and boyfriend and my dog, who were still on the ground watching my great escape. i imagined all the people that i knew that didn't feel as passionately as i did about how we should treat one another and all that kind of thing - i.e. the "unsaved" (not that i subscribe to the idea that some are saved and some are not, but for the sake of my thought experiment, it was necessary to view my world in those terms with all the associated "what if's")

and so what would i do, given that scenario coming to be, for real?

i didn't think about it, i just took my first impulsive reply to my own question.

and it was "ask to be taken back to my family so that they wouldn't have to bear all the bad and scary times by themselves"

besides the fact that i didn't want to leave them, what fun could there possibly be in "paradise" for someone who was sick at heart over the people they'd left behind?

if someone truly does their best to follow the example of Jesus, then there could be no true appeal in the rapture idea - especially in the way that it has been popularized and accepted by most who believe in it, which is that even their own family members might not make the cut like they do.

it's too much of a contradiction and i have no ideas on how to resolve it to be true in the framework of loving others as much as i love myself.

to be glad to escape and not look back is to love myself more and that's not what Jesus said to do.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join