Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is the Greek for “”brethren” in 2 Thess. 1:3. Brethren are fellow Christian’s, members of the same religious community.
◄ 80. adelphos ►
Strong's Concordance
adelphos: a brother
Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Definition: a brother
Usage: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
The Greek term for sister is adelphe. In the case of 2 John 1:13, sister is in reference to a Christian woman, a member of the church.
79. adelphé ►
Strong's Concordance
adelphé: sister
Original Word: ἀδελφή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: adelphé
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fay')
Definition: sister
Usage: a sister, a woman (fellow-)member of a church, a Christian woman.
2 John 1:13
13The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
I’m not arguing or debating with you, all I’m getting at is that in religious and church terms the designations of male and female are relevant down here, and are used in the types of assembling which is why the church of Christ’s still have male elders, the same as the Roman Catholic priest is traditionally male, and pastor of many churches are male
It follows the original pattern in Genesis of Adam being male over the female and having first place in relation to the female
The female or church (eve ) bears both male/female children offspring
It’s about the organisational and the system and the types that The Holy Scriptures describe
By God. The verse I quoted in the OP is from the NT Canon. To the best of my knowledge, most all Christian groups accept the 27 books of the New Testament, Mormons included. Most of the canon can be proven within the Scriptures themselves. There has been much written about this. It’s far too much to write about here, but there’s plenty of info out there for those who are interested.
But my question was, which canon?
Most Christians have very limited knowledge of how the Bible they believe to be "complete and infallible" ever came to exist in the first place. For example...
A list of the books comprising the "Christian" canon was compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. This list was discovered in 1740 in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?
The Bible canon itself has been changed many, many times over the years. Surely books don't go from being "God breathed" to "not God breathed" and sometimes back again over the years. What makes the canon accepted as legitimate in 2024 any more accurate (in terms of which documents were included in it) than the canon accepted as legitimate in 300 A.D. or at any other time in history?
Most Christians have very limited knowledge of how the Bible they believe to be "complete and infallible" ever came to exist in the first place. For example...
A list of the books comprising the "Christian" canon was compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. This list was discovered in 1740 in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?
The Bible canon itself has been changed many, many times over the years. Surely books don't go from being "God breathed" to "not God breathed" and sometimes back again over the years. What makes the canon accepted as legitimate in 2024 any more accurate (in terms of which documents were included in it) than the canon accepted as legitimate in 300 A.D. or at any other time in history?
Most Christians have very limited knowledge of how the Bible they believe to be "complete and infallible" ever came to exist in the first place. For example...
A list of the books comprising the "Christian" canon was compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. This list was discovered in 1740 in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?
The Bible canon itself has been changed many, many times over the years. Surely books don't go from being "God breathed" to "not God breathed" and sometimes back again over the years. What makes the canon accepted as legitimate in 2024 any more accurate (in terms of which documents were included in it) than the canon accepted as legitimate in 300 A.D. or at any other time in history?
Overall this is a good post, though I would quibble with a few minor details presented.
The fundamental question is of course this: who gets to decide what is and what isn't Scripture?
Since God didn't drop a completed Bible in anyone's lap, we know that what is and what isn't Scripture has always been decided by men. Since men have disagreed over the centuries, whom are we to trust?
Overall this is a good post, though I would quibble with a few minor details presented.
The fundamental question is of course this: who gets to decide what is and what isn't Scripture?
Since God didn't drop a completed Bible in anyone's lap, we know that what is and what isn't Scripture has always been decided by men. Since men have disagreed over the centuries, whom are we to trust?
It should have been Jesus and only Jesus. Anything that contradicts or is inconsistent with the Holy Spirit of God as revealed and demonstrated by Jesus on the Cross can NOT be inspired by God (or it has been misinterpreted).
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Hold on to the teachings given by the apostles that have been handed down. These are not human traditions but the traditions of God. God’s word being passed on and handed down is what we are to hold on to.
I agree Not human traditions, but Paul was referring to the teachings received from Jesus - 1st Corinthians 11:2,23; 15:3
2nd Thessalonians 3:6 too is interesting in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ......
This ties in with Luke's warning given at Acts 20:29-30. ( un-inspiried human tradition is what conflicts with God's Word )
Paul stressed the Holy Writings in connection to Jesus at 2nd Timothy 3:15.
Teachings handed down from Christ Jesus - 1st Corinthians 11:2,23
Most Christians have very limited knowledge of how the Bible they believe to be "complete and infallible" ever came to exist in the first place. For example...
A list of the books comprising the "Christian" canon was compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. This list was discovered in 1740 in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?
The Bible canon itself has been changed many, many times over the years. Surely books don't go from being "God breathed" to "not God breathed" and sometimes back again over the years. What makes the canon accepted as legitimate in 2024 any more accurate (in terms of which documents were included in it) than the canon accepted as legitimate in 300 A.D. or at any other time in history?
1. The OP topic is The “Traditions” Given by the Apostles.” Those teachings are found in the 27 books of the NT. That is the scope of the discussion. The OP is not about the Old Testament.
2. To the best of my knowledge, the LDS accepts the twenty-seven books of the NT as God-breathed and authoritative. I agree with them 100%. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants agree as well.
3. Since we both believe the 27 books of the New Testament to be the word of God, the burden of proof is on you to show other books such as the Book of Mormon to be God-breathed.
Overall this is a good post, though I would quibble with a few minor details presented.
The fundamental question is of course this: who gets to decide what is and what isn't Scripture?
Since God didn't drop a completed Bible in anyone's lap, we know that what is and what isn't Scripture has always been decided by men. Since men have disagreed over the centuries, whom are we to trust?
Hi Mike,
The OP topic is The “Traditions” Given by the Apostles.” The New Testament is the scope of the thread.
The CCC 105 states
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church.”
From this I glean that as a faithful Catholic, you believe the twenty-seven books of the New Testament to be God-breathed since this is what your church teaches. I would agree with your church and you on this 100%.
The Catholic Church has numerous traditions (doctrines) outside of the 27 books of the New Testament. The burden of proof lies with the Catholic Church and you to prove those traditions are God-breathed.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.
I pray your day is blessed.
Kate
Last edited by MissKate12; 04-03-2024 at 06:11 AM..
I’m not arguing or debating with you, all I’m getting at is that in religious and church terms the designations of male and female are relevant down here, and are used in the types of assembling which is why the church of Christ’s still have male elders, the same as the Roman Catholic priest is traditionally male, and pastor of many churches are male
It follows the original pattern in Genesis of Adam being male over the female and having first place in relation to the female
The female or church (eve ) bears both male/female children offspring
It’s about the organisational and the system and the types that The Holy Scriptures describe
Thank you Meerkat, but your post is way outside the OP topic discussion. The OP is about the traditions given to the apostles. If you have comments concerning the traditions of the apostles, I’d be very interested in reading them.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.
I agree Not human traditions, but Paul was referring to the teachings received from Jesus - 1st Corinthians 11:2,23; 15:3
2nd Thessalonians 3:6 too is interesting in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ......
This ties in with Luke's warning given at Acts 20:29-30. ( un-inspiried human tradition is what conflicts with God's Word )
Paul stressed the Holy Writings in connection to Jesus at 2nd Timothy 3:15.
Teachings handed down from Christ Jesus - 1st Corinthians 11:2,23
You are right Matthew. Paul is referring to traditions he and the other apostles received from Jesus.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.
Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants accept the 27 books of the NT to be God-breathed.
Furthermore, Paul tells the church at Thessalonica to withdraw from any brother who doesn’t walk according to those traditions given by him and the other apostles.
Have a blessed day!
Kate
Last edited by MissKate12; 04-03-2024 at 07:18 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
