Página 3 de 13 PrimeroPrimero 12345 ... ÚltimoÚltimo
Mostrando resultados 31 a 45 de 195

Mensaje: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

  1. #31
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Jul 2008
    Respuestas
    3.459

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por Herald Ver Mensaje
    Disculpas a mis hermano que no hablan ingles:

    The Contradictions of
    ‘Apostolic’ Tradition



    Roman Catholicism teaches that the apostles left the church with an unwritten authoritative oral tradition. This tradition supposedly gives us the proper way of how Scripture is to be interpreted, and the Roman Church claims that it practices and interprets Scripture according to those traditions that were taught by apostles. However, as history shows, there are many reasons why one should reject the claim of ‘apostolic’ tradition.

    Papias vs. Eusebius

    Papias, one of the earliest of the church fathers, made a few claims concerning so-called ‘apostolic’ traditions. However, Eusebius, a fourth century church historian, repudiates his ‘apostolic’ traditions as being ‘mythical’:

    “But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm. The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: “And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said.” The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses.” (emphasis mine)
    -Eusebius, Church History 3.39.8-13
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...#P2185_1027485

    As you can see, many of the church fathers did not accept Papias’ ‘apostolic’ traditions. Another thing that must be noted is that Papias’ ‘apostolic’ tradition about the coming of Christ is in opposition to Roman Catholic teaching. Papias said that premillennialism was an ‘apostolic’ tradition while the Roman Catholic Church holds to amillennialism.

    Easter: Polycrates vs. Victor

    In the late 2nd century, Victor, the bishop of Rome, threatened to cut off communion with the Eastern churches because they celebrated Easter on a different day than that of the Western churches. The Eastern churches, represented by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, defied the bishop of Rome, and both sides claimed that apostolic tradition was on their side. Eusebius records this:

    “For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.” (emphasis mine)
    -Eusebius, Church History 5.23.1
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...#P3363_1568793

    The bishops of the East did not give in, and they wrote a letter to Victor:
    “But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:
    “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John,who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.””

    -Eusebius, Church History 5.24.1-2
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...#P3363_1568793

    This is a perfect example of ‘apostolic’ traditions originating from apostolic sees contradicting each other. If anything, this proves that oral traditions are unreliable at best.

    The Age of Jesus According to Irenaeus


    Irenaeus was one of the earliest church fathers, and he was a very popular anti-gnostic writer. In his famous work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus used what he believed to be an apostolic tradition for one of his arguments against Gnosticism:

    “On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement…But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age…He did not then wont much of being fifty years old.” (emphasis mine)
    -Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5-6
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7011_1802900

    Here, Irenaeus claims that Jesus lived to be nearly fifty years old before He was crucified, and he cited this as an apostolic tradition that originated from the Apostle John. However, we know that Jesus only lived to be thirty-three years old when he was crucified.

    Cyprian and Firmilian vs. Stephen

    In the mid-third century, a controversy arose whether heretical baptism was valid. Cyprian, like his fellow African, Tertullian, said that it was not valid and claimed apostolic tradition for his practice. Stephen, the bishop of Rome, on the other hand, said that heretics should not be re-baptized and also claimed apostolic tradition for his beliefs. Cyprian records Stephen’s claims:

    “But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles…” (emphasis mine)
    -Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Letter LXXIV.6
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...#P6387_2042966

    Cyprian goes on to say that Stephen’s apostolic tradition is false and that the rest of the churches of the world agree with his (i.e. Cyprian’s) ‘apostolic’ tradition:

    “…any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence, it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.” (emphasis mine)
    -Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Letter LXXIV.6
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...#P6387_2042966

    Cyprian records a letter from Firmilian, bishop of Cappadocia, which sides with him:

    “But with respect to the refutation of custom which they seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness?-unless most ancient custom in any respect avail the Jews, upon the advent of Christ, that is, the Truth, in remaining in their old usage, and forsaking the new way of truth. And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles. Nor do we remember that this at any time began among us, since it has always been observed here, that we knew none but one Church of God, and accounted no baptism holy except that of the holy Church.” (emphasis mine)
    -Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Letter LXXIV.19
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...#P6387_2042966

    Eusebius records the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Sixtus I about Stephen:

    “’He therefore had written previously concerning Helenus and Firmilianus, and all those in Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia and the neighboring nations, saying that he would not commune with them for this same cause; namely, that they re-baptized heretics. But consider the importance of the matter. For truly in the largest synods of the bishops, as I learn, decrees have been passed on this subject, that those coming over from heresies should be instructed, and then should be washed and cleansed from the filth of the old and impure leaven. And I wrote entreating him concerning all these things.’” (emphasis mine)
    -Eusebius, Church History 7.7.4-5
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...#P4241_2002100

    Not only did these two so-called ‘apostolic’ traditions contradict each other (which brings doubt to the reliability of oral tradition), but the Roman Catholic Church holds to the same tradition today that Stephen held to in the third century. Nearly the entire early church in the days of Cyprian and Stephen opposed Stephen’s custom as being non-apostolic. Thus, the modern Roman Church is in violation of its vow never to interpret the Scriptures in opposition to the unanimous consent of the church fathers.

    The Septuagint Myth

    The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, was written a few hundred years before the First Advent of Christ, and it became the Bible translation for the Christians of the early church. Between the time that the Septuagint was formed and the Church Age, many myths appeared about the formation of the Septuagint, and many Christians came to believe in them. Cyril of Jerusalem typifies this:

    “For after the death of Alexander, the king of the Macedonians, and the division of his kingdom into four principalities, into Babylonia, and Macedonia, and Asia, and Egypt, one of those who reigned over Egypt, Ptolemy Philadelphus, being a king very fond of learning, while collecting the books that were in every place, heard from Demetrius Phalereus, the curator of his library, of the Divine Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and judged it much nobler, not to get the books from the possessors by force against their will, but rather to propitiate them by gifts and friendship; and knowing that what is extorted is often adulterated, being given unwillingly, while that which is willingly supplied is freely given with all sincerity, he sent to Eleazar, who was then High Priest, a great many gifts for the Temple here at Jerusalem, and caused him to send him six interpreters from each of the twelve tribes of Israel for the translation. Then, further, to make experiment whether the books were Divine or not, he took precaution that those who had been sent should not combine among themselves, by assigning to each of the interpreters who had come his separate chamber in the island called Pharos, which lies over against Alexandria, and committed to each the whole Scriptures to translate. And when they had fulfilled the task in seventy-two days, he brought together all their translations, which they had made in different chambers without sending them one to another, and found that they agreed not only in the sense but even in words. For the process was no word-craft, nor contrivance of human devices: but the translation of the Divine Scriptures, spoken by the Holy Ghost, was of the Holy Ghost accomplished.” (emphasis mine)
    -Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4.34
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...htm#P452_92480

    Cyril, like many Christians, believed that the translators were sent into separate caves and came up with the same translation of the Old Testament word for word, and he used this belief to convince his catechumens that they could trust their Greek translation of the Old Testament. However, as many scholars have shown, the belief about the separate caves and the same translations is a myth. This myth is further disproved by comparing the Septuagint to the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament where it can be shown that there are obvious mistranslations.

    http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com..._tradition.htm
    Yo no hablo ingles jejeje.

  2. #32
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Dec 2006
    Edad
    26
    Respuestas
    10.759

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por Herald Ver Mensaje
    Disculpas a mis hermano que no hablan ingles:

    The Contradictions of
    ‘Apostolic’ Tradition



    Roman Catholicism teaches that the apostles left the church with an unwritten authoritative oral tradition. This tradition supposedly gives us the proper way of how Scripture is to be interpreted, and the Roman Church claims that it practices and interprets Scripture according to those traditions that were taught by apostles. However, as history shows, there are many reasons why one should reject the claim of ‘apostolic’ tradition.

    Papias vs. Eusebius

    Papias, one of the earliest of the church fathers, made a few claims concerning so-called ‘apostolic’ traditions. However, Eusebius, a fourth century church historian, repudiates his ‘apostolic’ traditions as being ‘mythical’:

    “But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm. The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: “And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said.” The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses.” (emphasis mine)
    -Eusebius, Church History 3.39.8-13
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...#P2185_1027485

    As you can see, many of the church fathers did not accept Papias’ ‘apostolic’ traditions. Another thing that must be noted is that Papias’ ‘apostolic’ tradition about the coming of Christ is in opposition to Roman Catholic teaching. Papias said that premillennialism was an ‘apostolic’ tradition while the Roman Catholic Church holds to amillennialism.

    Easter: Polycrates vs. Victor

    In the late 2nd century, Victor, the bishop of Rome, threatened to cut off communion with the Eastern churches because they celebrated Easter on a different day than that of the Western churches. The Eastern churches, represented by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, defied the bishop of Rome, and both sides claimed that apostolic tradition was on their side. Eusebius records this:

    “For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.” (emphasis mine)
    -Eusebius, Church History 5.23.1
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...#P3363_1568793

    The bishops of the East did not give in, and they wrote a letter to Victor:
    “But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:
    “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John,who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.””

    -Eusebius, Church History 5.24.1-2
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...#P3363_1568793

    This is a perfect example of ‘apostolic’ traditions originating from apostolic sees contradicting each other. If anything, this proves that oral traditions are unreliable at best.

    The Age of Jesus According to Irenaeus


    Irenaeus was one of the earliest church fathers, and he was a very popular anti-gnostic writer. In his famous work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus used what he believed to be an apostolic tradition for one of his arguments against Gnosticism:

    “On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement…But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age…He did not then wont much of being fifty years old.” (emphasis mine)
    -Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5-6
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7011_1802900

    Here, Irenaeus claims that Jesus lived to be nearly fifty years old before He was crucified, and he cited this as an apostolic tradition that originated from the Apostle John. However, we know that Jesus only lived to be thirty-three years old when he was crucified.

    Cyprian and Firmilian vs. Stephen

    In the mid-third century, a controversy arose whether heretical baptism was valid. Cyprian, like his fellow African, Tertullian, said that it was not valid and claimed apostolic tradition for his practice. Stephen, the bishop of Rome, on the other hand, said that heretics should not be re-baptized and also claimed apostolic tradition for his beliefs. Cyprian records Stephen’s claims:

    “But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles…” (emphasis mine)
    -Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Letter LXXIV.6
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...#P6387_2042966

    Cyprian goes on to say that Stephen’s apostolic tradition is false and that the rest of the churches of the world agree with his (i.e. Cyprian’s) ‘apostolic’ tradition:

    “…any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence, it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.” (emphasis mine)
    -Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Letter LXXIV.6
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...#P6387_2042966

    Cyprian records a letter from Firmilian, bishop of Cappadocia, which sides with him:

    “But with respect to the refutation of custom which they seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness?-unless most ancient custom in any respect avail the Jews, upon the advent of Christ, that is, the Truth, in remaining in their old usage, and forsaking the new way of truth. And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles. Nor do we remember that this at any time began among us, since it has always been observed here, that we knew none but one Church of God, and accounted no baptism holy except that of the holy Church.” (emphasis mine)
    -Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Letter LXXIV.19
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...#P6387_2042966

    Eusebius records the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Sixtus I about Stephen:

    “’He therefore had written previously concerning Helenus and Firmilianus, and all those in Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia and the neighboring nations, saying that he would not commune with them for this same cause; namely, that they re-baptized heretics. But consider the importance of the matter. For truly in the largest synods of the bishops, as I learn, decrees have been passed on this subject, that those coming over from heresies should be instructed, and then should be washed and cleansed from the filth of the old and impure leaven. And I wrote entreating him concerning all these things.’” (emphasis mine)
    -Eusebius, Church History 7.7.4-5
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...#P4241_2002100

    Not only did these two so-called ‘apostolic’ traditions contradict each other (which brings doubt to the reliability of oral tradition), but the Roman Catholic Church holds to the same tradition today that Stephen held to in the third century. Nearly the entire early church in the days of Cyprian and Stephen opposed Stephen’s custom as being non-apostolic. Thus, the modern Roman Church is in violation of its vow never to interpret the Scriptures in opposition to the unanimous consent of the church fathers.

    The Septuagint Myth

    The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, was written a few hundred years before the First Advent of Christ, and it became the Bible translation for the Christians of the early church. Between the time that the Septuagint was formed and the Church Age, many myths appeared about the formation of the Septuagint, and many Christians came to believe in them. Cyril of Jerusalem typifies this:

    “For after the death of Alexander, the king of the Macedonians, and the division of his kingdom into four principalities, into Babylonia, and Macedonia, and Asia, and Egypt, one of those who reigned over Egypt, Ptolemy Philadelphus, being a king very fond of learning, while collecting the books that were in every place, heard from Demetrius Phalereus, the curator of his library, of the Divine Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and judged it much nobler, not to get the books from the possessors by force against their will, but rather to propitiate them by gifts and friendship; and knowing that what is extorted is often adulterated, being given unwillingly, while that which is willingly supplied is freely given with all sincerity, he sent to Eleazar, who was then High Priest, a great many gifts for the Temple here at Jerusalem, and caused him to send him six interpreters from each of the twelve tribes of Israel for the translation. Then, further, to make experiment whether the books were Divine or not, he took precaution that those who had been sent should not combine among themselves, by assigning to each of the interpreters who had come his separate chamber in the island called Pharos, which lies over against Alexandria, and committed to each the whole Scriptures to translate. And when they had fulfilled the task in seventy-two days, he brought together all their translations, which they had made in different chambers without sending them one to another, and found that they agreed not only in the sense but even in words. For the process was no word-craft, nor contrivance of human devices: but the translation of the Divine Scriptures, spoken by the Holy Ghost, was of the Holy Ghost accomplished.” (emphasis mine)
    -Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4.34
    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...htm#P452_92480

    Cyril, like many Christians, believed that the translators were sent into separate caves and came up with the same translation of the Old Testament word for word, and he used this belief to convince his catechumens that they could trust their Greek translation of the Old Testament. However, as many scholars have shown, the belief about the separate caves and the same translations is a myth. This myth is further disproved by comparing the Septuagint to the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament where it can be shown that there are obvious mistranslations.

    http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com..._tradition.htm
    Yo no encuentro contradicciones en las obras Apostolicas, aunque podrias remarcar en donde contradice a cada quien.

  3. #33
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Jul 2008
    Respuestas
    3.459

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Muy bien decía uno de los padres apsotólicos:

    "Para aquel que quiera creer tengo mil pruebas, pero para el que no quiera creer no tengo ninguna" San Agustín

    Bendiciones!

  4. #34
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Dec 2006
    Edad
    26
    Respuestas
    10.759

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por chico_catolico Ver Mensaje
    Muy bien decía uno de los padres apsotólicos:

    "Para aquel que quiera creer tengo mil pruebas, pero para el que no quiera creer no tengo ninguna" San Agustín

    Bendiciones!
    Pero es que no leo ninguna contradiccion. Y en ingles dudo mucho que alguien vea que se contradicen.

  5. #35
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Mar 2010
    Respuestas
    1.551

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por chico_catolico Ver Mensaje
    jajaja, Agustín NO creía en salvo siempre Salvo!!!!!
    Mientes, si sabia, me sorprende que digas tal cosa, ¿quieres conocer eso? esperate no mas.

    A Herald, le digo que tiene razon en algo, asi como los de la icar dicen que en la biblia no dice que se debe creer en la sola scriptura, tambien tu preguntaste muy acertadamente cuando dijiste que tampoco en la biblia se dice que se necesita de los escritos chancrosantos que usan los de la icar para sostener sus doctrinas humeantes y asqueantes.

  6. #36
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Mar 2010
    Respuestas
    1.551

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por chico_catolico Ver Mensaje
    Vayikra NUNCA me repondiste el post de "sola Escritura", pero esto era un sólo parentesis, en fin el rechazar a los Padres Apostólicos es rechazar el mismo evangelio porque ellos explicaban lo que los apotóles enseñaron y no quedó escrito.

    Bendiciones!
    Mientes, porque si eso que dices es cierto entonces los contradicciones de los discipulos de los apostoles tambien son inspiradas y por lo tanto tu argmento se refuta asi mismo.

    Tambien notaras si tienes algo de conocimiento que en los dias de la misma iglesia primitiva escrita en los hechos habia discrepancias entre los mismos cristianos.

    Ademas eso que dice el catolico significa que los discipulos nunca se desviarian de la verdad cosa completamente absurda. Muchos discipulos no siempre creen lo que dicen sus propios maestros y sin embrago estos señores dicen que los discipulos de los apostoles no pudieron tener ideas distintas.

    Otra cosita 1 Corintios 4:6 "Pero esto, hermanos, lo he presentado como ejemplo en mí y en Apolos por amor de vosotros, para que en nosotros aprendáis a no pensar más de lo que está escrito, no sea que por causa de uno, os envanezcáis unos contra otros".

    A. T. Robertson el mas grande gramatico sobre la historia del idioma Griego dice:

    "Besson da una buena solucion traduciendolo en forma de cita: para que en nosotros aprendais aquello de no mas alla de lo que esta escrito".

  7. #37
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Mar 2010
    Respuestas
    1.551

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por Kal_El Ver Mensaje
    No hace falta, la Biblioteca de unos amigos Jesuitas me dejan checarlos y en Español. Y te digo, no se contradicen, sino que son tan Cristianos como los Catolicos.
    Bueno ya se ha demostrado que don agustin creia en la predestinacion.

    Otra cpsita envianos esa biblioteca de tu compadre el jesuitaese para leer mas detalladamente sobre sus libros y ver en realidad que si habian unidad como tu dices, ¿entiendes erudito?

  8. #38
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Dec 2006
    Edad
    26
    Respuestas
    10.759

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por edanny2010 Ver Mensaje
    Bueno ya se ha demostrado que don agustin creia en la predestinacion.

    Otra cpsita envianos esa biblioteca de tu compadre el jesuitaese para leer mas detalladamente sobre sus libros y ver en realidad que si habian unidad como tu dices, ¿entiendes erudito?
    Si, pero San Agustin decia tambien lo siguiente:

    No creería en el Evangelio, si a ello no me moviera la autoridad de la Iglesia católica
    San Agustín. C. ep. Man. 5,6; cf. C. Faustum 28,2

  9. #39
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Mar 2010
    Respuestas
    1.551

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por Kal_El Ver Mensaje
    Si, pero San Agustin decia tambien lo siguiente:

    No creería en el Evangelio, si a ello no me moviera la autoridad de la Iglesia católica
    San Agustín. C. ep. Man. 5,6; cf. C. Faustum 28,2
    Tienes razon en lo que el decia, pero aca no se esta tocando ese tema, lo que se esta tocando es que ellos diferian.

    Ademas si el hacia caso de la autoridad de la iglesia entonces la iglesia enseñaba la predestinacion como la creia el, entonces de ellos se sigue que la icar no enseña la predestinacion y por lo tanto esta equivocada. Ahora si la iglesia catolica no esta equivocada entonces lo estaba don agustin.

    Bendiciones.

  10. #40
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Dec 2006
    Edad
    26
    Respuestas
    10.759

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por edanny2010 Ver Mensaje
    Tienes razon en lo que el decia, pero aca no se esta tocando ese tema, lo que se esta tocando es que ellos diferian.

    Ademas si el hacia caso de la autoridad de la iglesia entonces la iglesia enseñaba la predestinacion como la creia el, entonces de ellos se sigue que la icar no enseña la predestinacion y por lo tanto esta equivocada. Ahora si la iglesia catolica no esta equivocada entonces lo estaba don agustin.

    Bendiciones.
    ¿Ah si? ¿Donde exactamente san Agustin afirma la PREDESTINACION?

  11. #41
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Mar 2010
    Respuestas
    1.551

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por Kal_El Ver Mensaje
    ¿Ah si? ¿Donde exactamente san Agustin afirma la PREDESTINACION?
    DIME ALGO, ¿PORQUE TE INDIGNAS? SI TE MUESTRO QUE DON AGUSTIN DE HIPONASICREIA EN LA PREDESTINACION ¿DEJARIAS DE CITAR A LOS PADRS APOSTOLICOS PARA DEFENDER TUS DOCTRINAS? SINO SERIA PERDIDA DE TIEMPO MOSTRARTE QUE AGUSTIN CREIA ESA DOCTRINA. DE TODAS MANERAS SI INSISTES EN QUE TE MUESTRE TE MOSTRARE ELLO.

    BENDICIONES

  12. #42
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Mar 2010
    Respuestas
    1.551

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Dan Corner da unos comentarios sobre la predestinacion de don agustin, pero reciclada por Calvino.

    El origen de UVSSS
    UVSSS puede fácilmente remontarse a Juan Calvino (1509-1564) desde el Sínodo de Dort bajo la descripción de la perseverancia de los santos. Pero ¿sabía usted que ella, y otros puntos del calvinismo, pueden trazarse hasta más de mil años antes hasta Agustín de Hipona (354-430)?


    Este fue el tema en torno del cual Agustín estructuró su pensamiento durante la última mitad de su ministerio literario. Como él lo dijo: “Cualesquiera personas que son a través de las riquezas de la gracia divina exentas de la sentencia original de condenación son indudablemente traídas para oír el Evangelio, y cuando lo oyen son provocadas a creerlo, y son hechas asimismo persistir hasta el fin en la fe que obra por el amor, y si en cualquier tiempo se extraviasen, son recuperadas y enderezadas de nuevo.” Aquí están la Elección y la seguridad eterna. 24
    Como consecuencia Agustín escribió dos tratados: el primero fue titulado Sobre la predestinación de los santos y el segundo Sobre el don de la perseverancia. En el primero, Agustín reafirmaba que la Predestinación no es en modo alguno basada en un mérito previsto en los elegidos. Todos los esfuerzos de un hombre con su propia fuerza para alcanzar santidad de vida aparte de la presencia del Espíritu Santo morando en él son en vano, y Agustín explicó por qué es así. En el segundo tratado Agustín mostró que la Perseverancia de los Santos, con lo cual significaba (en terminología moderna) la seguridad eterna del creyente, no depende de las buenas obras del creyente individual que pudieran resultar de su conversión, sino enteramente de la constancia e inmutabilidad del escoger electivo de Dios (cursivas suyas). 25
    Desde Agustín esta doctrina [la perseverancia de los santos] ha servido como la estructura teológica dentro de la cual los teólogos han luchado con la pregunta de si uno permanece en la salvación y cómo. Agustín intodujo la idea de un donum perseverantiae: como un don divino, la perseverancia de los santos en la gracia era cierta. Calvino posteriormente fue el campeón de la doctrina al afirmar la perseverancia de los creyentes a través del poder y la fidelidad de Dios. Las confesiones reformadas, en particular los Cánones de Dort, enfáticamente adoptaron la perseverancia de los santos al negar que ellos pudiesen total o finalmente caer (cursivas suyas). 26
    Las enseñanzas específicas de Agustín sobre la perseverancia, en parte, son como sigue:


    Hablamos de aquella perseverancia por la cual uno persevera hasta el fin. Si esta es dada, uno persevera hasta el fin; y si uno no persevera hasta el fin, no fue dada ... Ya que nadie tiene perseverancia hasta el fin a menos que de hecho persevere hasta el fin, muchos pueden tenerla y nadie puede perderla. No ha de temerse que cuando un hombre haya perseverado hasta el fin pueda surgir algún mal en él de modo que no persevere hasta el fin. Este don de Dios, por tanto, puede obtenerse por súplica; pero cuando ha sido dado, no puede perderse por contumacia (puntos suspensivos suyos). 27
    Mira ahora cuán extraño a la verdad es negar aquella perseverancia hasta el fin de esta vida que es un don de Dios, ya que Él mismo pone fin a esta vida cuando quiere, y si Él le pone fin antes de una caída inminente, hace a un hombre perseverar hasta el fin. Pero más maravilloso y más evidente para los fieles es la longanimidad de Dios, al dar esta gracia hasta a los infantes en quienes no hay, a esa edad, obediencia a la cual pudiera ser dada. 28
    ¡Según la historia de la iglesia, entonces, la enseñanza de UVSSS y el calvinismo básico comenzaron con Aurelio Agustín, del siglo V!


    Por ejemplo, las doctrinas básicas de la posición calvinista habían sido vigorosamente defendidas por Agustín contra Pelagio durante el siglo V. 29
    ¿Cómo entonces difirió Juan Calvino de Agustín en su influencia sobre UVSSS?


    En algunos ámbitos se está tornando popular afirmar que la verdadera fe cristiana se resuelve en el sistema de pensamiento que ha llegado a ser conocido – correcta o erróneamente – como calvinismo. Se nos dice que lo que creemos – si creemos como debiéramos – ha de identificarse con una enseñanza desarrollada primero por San Agustín y luego más completamente sistematizada por Juan Calvino. 30
    Respecto a las doctrinas de la caída, de la depravación total, la esclavitud de la voluntad humana, la soberanía de la gracia salvadora, el obispo de Hipona y el pastor de Ginebra están esencialmente de acuerdo; el primero [Agustín] tiene el mérito de la prioridad y originalidad; el segundo [Calvino] es más claro, más fuerte, más lógico y riguroso, y por lejos superior como exegeta. 31
    La historia de la Iglesia declara que Agustín fue el originador y desarrollador de UVSSS y otras enseñanzas calvinistas relacionadas, como la elección, sobre las cuales descansa. Juan Calvino sistematizó lógicamente la teología de Agustín.

  13. #43
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Dec 2006
    Edad
    26
    Respuestas
    10.759

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por edanny2010 Ver Mensaje
    DIME ALGO, ¿PORQUE TE INDIGNAS? SI TE MUESTRO QUE DON AGUSTIN DE HIPONA SI CREIA EN LA PREDESTINACION ¿DEJARIAS DE CITAR A LOS PADRS APOSTOLICOS PARA DEFENDER TUS DOCTRINAS? SINO SERIA PERDIDA DE TIEMPO MOSTRARTE QUE AGUSTIN CREIA ESA DOCTRINA. DE TODAS MANERAS SI INSISTES EN QUE TE MUESTRE TE MOSTRARE ELLO.

    BENDICIONES
    No me indigno, solo me divierto contigo. La verdad es que sacar a san Agustin de Hipona de contexto como tu lo haces es muy divertido, y es que ya no saben que hacer para frentar lo obvio, pero creeme, citamente donde san Agustin apoya la Predestinacion y te mostrare lo muuuuy equivocado que estas. Citeme donde exactamente san Agustin lo dice. No me traigas a la basura de Dan Corner, sino al excelso Obispo Africano, San Agustin de Hipona.

  14. #44
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Mar 2010
    Respuestas
    1.551

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por Kal_El Ver Mensaje
    No me indigno, solo me divierto contigo. La verdad es que sacar a san Agustin de Hipona de contexto como tu lo haces es muy divertido, y es que ya no saben que hacer para frentar lo obvio, pero creeme, citamente donde san Agustin apoya la Predestinacion y te mostrare lo muuuuy equivocado que estas. Citeme donde exactamente san Agustin lo dice. No me traigas a la basura de Dan Corner, sino al excelso Obispo Africano, San Agustin de Hipona.
    Que gracioso, ahora dices que sacamos fuera de contexto a don agustin.
    Por otro lado es la basura satanica de agustin la que deben sacarse y la de otros mentirosos para defender sus mentiras catolicas que nadie sabio las cree.
    Aun sino enseñase don agustn la doctrina de la predestinacion, no es la unica y tienen que dar cuentas por muchos escritos los pobres catoliquitos.

  15. #45
    Fecha de Ingreso
    Dec 2006
    Edad
    26
    Respuestas
    10.759

    Por Defecto Re: LOS LLAMADOS PADRES APOSTOLICOS Y DE LA IGLESIA

    Cita Originalmente enviado por edanny2010 Ver Mensaje
    Que gracioso, ahora dices que sacamos fuera de contexto a don agustin.
    Por otro lado es la basura satanica de agustin la que deben sacarse y la de otros mentirosos para defender sus mentiras catolicas que nadie sabio las cree.
    Aun sino enseñase don agustn la doctrina de la predestinacion, no es la unica y tienen que dar cuentas por muchos escritos los pobres catoliquitos.
    JAJAJAJA, enserio, eres mejor que un chimpance con maracas... pero enserio, nadie, ni uno solo de los Padres Apostolicos enseña la Predestinacion, lo que pasa, es que basura como Dan Corner quiere derrumbarlos, pero sencillamente, no puede.

Información sobre el Tema

Users Browsing this Thread

Actualmente hay 1 usuarios navegando por este tema. (0 miembros y 1 invitados)

Normas de Publicación

  • no puedes enviar nuevos mensajes
  • no puedes publicar nuevas respuestas
  • no puedes añadir vínculos
  • no puedes editar tus mensajes
  •  
Licencia de Creative Commons
Esta obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons.


Sindica: RSS1 Sindica: RSS2 Add to Google Añadir a Mi Yahoo! Suscribir con Bloglines