Yo no encuentro contradicciones en las obras Apostolicas, aunque podrias remarcar en donde contradice a cada quien.Disculpas a mis hermano que no hablan ingles:
The Contradictions of
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.