And the reason this doesn’t apply is because Moses was given revelation. Unless you’re going to claim that the church received public revelation after the apostolic period. Which, to the best of my knowledge, Rome says it hasn’t.
Yep. Otherwise, how would we know He said “Blessed are those who believed without seeing?”
I’m sorry, but no. This is where Protestantism failsYep. Otherwise, how would we know He said “Blessed are those who believed without seeing?”
But Jesus did say seeing. He didn’t say hearing. After all, Jesus, through St. Paul also said that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. We base our faith on evidences for the resurrection of Jesus, not warm fuzzy feelings.
You are side stepping the issue at hand my friend. But the issue is not whether Moses received revelation or not. The point is that you are negating oral transmission-that is the issue at hand.You are completely ruling it out as another source or means God can use to transmit divine revelation. Evidently God spoke to Abraham and not a single shred of evidence exist of Abraham writing down what he heard from God. Therefore, what Moses wrote about Abraham obviously was passed on throughtout the generations. It is not plausible? But according to you, it can become “blind faith” because it was not written down. And that is a false premise based on SS where many have been duped.
Through word of mouth which God did and can do as He pleases. No where does God ever declare:
.
Which begs the question:
If faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of Christ, then it does mean that faith was given to me…which means you just said the exact same thing I did
Ah, okay. Then I mistook what you meant by what you said.
There are probably millions of people who came to faith in Christ in just that exact way, Mary.
Wait a minute, what gives you this idea? Because I ask for evidence for something from an apostolic source, it negates tradition? So in other words, anything that anyone claims is apostolic tradition is automatically right, without any evidence that it comes from an apostle? Then why in the world did we condemn the Gnostics??
Ahhhhhh…it is clear you doubt the IC as having an Apostolic origin. You asked what evidence would be given-right? I have said numerous times via oral transmission.
Really? Millions? I would wonder about a dozen, let alone a hundred, but millions? How would they know anything about what they are reading, whether fiction or fact, stories or fables? Had Harry Potter, Book or Mormon, Quran, or anything else been in the motel room, mailbox or whatever, would they have read that and been converted to those too?
No. I am inclined to agree with the immaculate conception. I just used that as an example. Saying via oral transmission is a claim that anyone can make. I am talking specifics.
Why should I accept that it’s from an apostle if an apostle never recorded it?
Why wouldn’t they write it down?
The Trinity
The Scriptures never mention the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
True,but it pertains to specific Catholic doctrines/dogmas which the church has had held to,which are the ones under attack and are defended. Not saying you are attacking…I understand you.
Once more…and WHY is it a requirement that he record it? Did Jesus say they must write everything? We are talking about first century Palestine with an eastern culture, not programmed westerners with western ideals and standards.
I respect you, Syro. This is too goofy to respond to, though. Really? The Scriptures are equivalent to Harry Potter? The lengths you guys will go to in order to defend your church is truly bizarre. Case study 1456 of why I would never be Catholic.
Not in its complexity. Then what would be the point having it defined and explained in great detail outside the NT,if the NT already had it in place? Why work double.
And would they be required to write it down? Why didn’t Abraham write? Did all the twelve write? Is it impossible to rule out some where NOT capable of writing? God used some to write His words and while others He used to preach His words via oral transmission passed on through time.
Of course, the Nicene council used language for the Trinity that the first century apostles would have been unaware or unfamiliar of. However, every dogma stated at that council can be explicitly demonstrated by Scripture.
Arius mentioned them as well, what does that have to do with my post?
Explicitly? Where is the difference between homoiousious and homoousious explicit in Scripture? Or prosopon and hypostasis?
My brother in Christ, I understand what you are saying. But we all must remember, we are talking about first century Jews who had an entire different culture than ours. They did not exactly live,think, act and sharee our type of lives like today in our 21st century world. I am sure you aware it was not uncommon in those days to write under someone else name? I believe sometimes as modern Christians we want to acknowledge and read very fine and great details, which will somehow prove our points. The famous line: Show me the proof…show me the evidence.