Mary- other children

[Mickey]

Your so called “early church tradition” is not the authority, Scripture is!

Let me quote Jesus****from Mark 7:7; 8; 13**“These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men**…You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men…And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions…Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” :yup:

Jeremiah 17:5: 7 states, “This is what the Lord says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man…But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord.”

---

Sacred Tradition of the Church is not the same as tradition of men. That is why we call it the fulness of truth–because we have both sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition!

And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us. 2 thessalonians 3:6

Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you and speak face to face, that your joy may be full. 2 John 1:12

Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. 2 thessalonians 2:15

 

[John1717]

TheGarg:

You are totally brainwashed, my friend. Who do you think put the bible together…Hmmmmm, lets seee…what Church was around back in 400 AD…hmmmm …I know!! The Catholic Church. The fact is “dude” [CM 2005], that the Catholic Church added ALL the books!

**Actually my friend, you are the one who has been blinded by your indoctrination! **

The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth. The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ and His apostles used. Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics do today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the authority of those who gathered them and declared them to be inspired. He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men has sanctioned them as such, but because they came from God. Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books.

It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. The following is a list of some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.

• 1. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
• 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
• 1. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
• 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
• 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
• 160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
• 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
• 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
• Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.

Thus, the New Testament books were in existence in their present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. “And when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea.” (Col. 4:16). “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren.” (1 Thess. 5:27). The holy Scriptures were written for all (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1) and all will be judged by them in the last day (Rev. 20:12; John 12:48). Jesus said that His Word will abide forever (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).

God gave us the bible, not the Roman Catholic Church! :yup:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So, John, who were all those people, if not Catholic Christians? You mention Iraneus, who first referred to the followers of Christ as Catholics. . .

God gave us the Bible through the writings of those divinely inspired, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit upon the early Catholic Church members who established the canon of Scripture. . .including those 7 “deuterocanonicals”. . .

But you never answered my question.
Which church did Jesus found, if not the church that today is known as the Catholic Church, from which the Orthodox split in 1054 and the various Protestant sects from the 16th century onward? What other church was there?

 

[John1717]

Mickey:

Sacred Tradition of the Church is not the same as tradition of men. That is why we call it the fulness of truth–because we have both sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition!

And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they **have **received of us. 2 thessalonians 3:6

Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that **I **shall be with you and speak face to face, that your joy may be full. 2 John 1:12

Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. 2 thessalonians 2:15

Roman Catholicism teaches that Scripture alone is not all-sufficient (as well as useless without the magesterium to interpret it), but must be supplemented by tradition which is equally inspired. According to The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #82, “…Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” The Question Box Column, Brooklyn Tablet, Nov. 8, 1958, even went so far as to say, “Tradition as a source of Faith would suffice without Scripture”. For tradition to be equal to Scripture, it would be necessary for it to live up to the standards that the Bible dictates for itself. If tradition fails to live up to those standards, then it cannot claim equality. Let’s take a look at what the Bible says about itself. The Word of God is pure, perfect, inerrant, infallible, living, sure, truth, light, holy, eternal, forever settled in heaven, illuminates, cleanses, saves, heals, sanctifies, brings conviction, gives knowledge, gives wisdom, it frees, produces faith, it is a guide, converts the soul, it is sweeter than honey, it is meat, milk, bread, a seed, a lamp, a hammer, our only weapon (a sword), a fire, it quickens, judges, defeats Satan, refutes error, irrevocable, it searches the heart and mind, equips for every good work, is above His Name…to name a few. (Prov.30:5; Psa.138:2, 119:9, 28, 43, 50, 89, 103, 105, 130, 140, 160, 169, 19:7, 8, 107:20; Isa.40:8; Eph.5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer.5:14, 23:29; I Pet. 1:23, 2:2; Acts 20:32; Jn. 8:32, 10:35, 12:48, 17:17; Heb.5:12-14)

Can the same things be said about tradition? Is it pure, perfect, inerrant, or infallible? If it is not, then the claim that tradition is equal to the word of God is false. The answer is NO…Jesus used Scripture to correct the errors of tradition in several instances. In Matt.15:1-9 for instance, Jesus answers the Pharisees and scribes who complained that the disciples were transgressing the tradition of the elders:

"…Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?..Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN."

I believe it is revelant that Jesus never appealed to tradition as a standard of authority, but quite the contrary, he always corrected tradition with Scripture. Should we not imitate our Lord and Savior, who set before us His standard? And as we can see from the above Scripture, tradition is not inerrent, infallible and it definitely is not settled in heaven since Jesus rebuked it. Colossians 2:8 warns us to beware of “traditions of men”. Is it pure? Again, the answer is NO!By Rome’s own admission, their basic documents are forgeries (Isidorian Decretals, Cyrian Decretals, Gratians Decretum, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, Donation of Constantine, etc.). Therefore the tradition that was passed down was polluted, again leaving it unequal with the Word of God which is pure.
The Word of God sets men free (Jn.8:31-32), but does Tradition?

 

[John1717]

RSiscoe:

John1717,

What does 2 Thes 2:14-15 say?

Could you quote that for me?

Second Thessalonians 2:15: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

First of all, the apostle is speaking not of traditions passed down to the Thessalonians by someone else though word of mouth. This “tradition” is nothing other than doctrine that they had heard directly from Paul’s own lips during his ministry in their church. The Greek word translated “traditions” is paradosis, translated “ordinances” in the King James Version. The Greek root contains the idea of transmission, and the idea is no doubt doctrine that was transmitted by oral means. In this case, however, it refers only to Paul’s own preaching—not to someone else’s report of what Paul taught.

The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly from the apostle Paul, telling them that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:2). The entire church had apparently been upset by this, and the apostle Paul was eager to encourage them.
For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony “inspired truth.” And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write” (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles.

But even more important, he wanted them to stand fast in the teaching they had already received from him. He had already told them, for example, that the day of the Lord would be preceded by a falling away, and the unveiling of the man of lawlessness. “Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?” (2:5). There was no excuse for them to be troubled by a phony letter, for they had heard the actual truth from his own mouth already.

Your welcome!

 

[John1717]

Tantum ergo:

So, John, who were all those people, if not Catholic Christians? You mention Iraneus, who first referred to the followers of Christ as Catholics. . .

God gave us the Bible through the writings of those divinely inspired, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit upon the early Catholic Church members who established the canon of Scripture. . .including those 7 “deuterocanonicals”. . .

But you never answered my question.
Which church did Jesus found, if not the church that today is known as the Catholic Church, from which the Orthodox split in 1054 and the various Protestant sects from the 16th century onward? What other church was there?

(1) An observation. Let us kindly observe that the church of Christ (a) is not a Jewish synagogue. The Old Testament, the foundation of Judaism, has been done away (Rom. 7:1-4; Colossians 2:14,17; Hebrews 8:8-13). Furthermore, (b) the church of Christ is not a Protestant denomination. All the denominations of our day were established by men, hundreds of years after the church of our Lord was established on Pentecost, Acts 2, A.D. 33 (Mark 9:1; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:1-4, 47). Denominational earmarks are conspicuously absent in the church of Christ: prayer altars, voting on baptismal candidates, mechanical instruments of music in worship, universal and terrirotial organizations, etc. (c) The church of Christ is not the Catholic Church… The Roman Catholic church did not come into existence in a fullgrown state until 606 A.D., nearly 600 years after the Lord’s church was established in 33 A.D. as previously observed. The cardinal doctrines of Catholicism are not in harmony with biblical teaching, as can be scripturally observed in many of the chapters composing this volume.

(2) The church defined . The word “church” is from the Greek word ecclesia, and means “the called out.” Thus, the church is that body of people who have been called out of the world by the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14), by obedience thereto (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Christ rules as the singular head of the church (Colossians 1:18), and the Spirit dwells within her (Ephesians 2:22, 23).

(3) The church is singular in number. There is one fold (John 10:16). The church is that fold (Acts 20:28). There is one body (Ephesians 4:4); that body is the church (Ephesians 1:22, 23). The Lord taught the monogamy of marriage (Romans 7:1-4) and the church is his bride (Ephesians 5:22-33).

The church of Christ is that one, true New Testament church which existed in the first century.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We are not speaking, regarding Catholic “Tradition”, of the traditions of men, are we? In fact, we are speaking of the Tradition of God. Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees, spoke strictly of “their” traditions–for example, their enlarging of their phylacteries to show holiness. He wasn’t condemning His own, God’s, traditions. He called for phylacteries for His chosen people. . .but not for ornate, self-aggrandizing ones like the Pharisees chose to make.

Or are you saying that God has no Tradition Himself?

How interesting that you seem to flat out miss the “hold fast to the traditions which you have received, either in writing or by word of mouth?”

Oral tradition. Written tradition. Scripture is the written tradition that we have of God. Paul himself says so. . .“Hold fast to the traditions which we have taught you. . .”

How come all Christians, for 1600 years, believed, from Scripture (John), in transsubstantiation–and then somehow, some people, 1600 years after Jesus established His church, wound up denying that Scripture on the grounds that it wasn’t literal? How did they know? How could they change? Scripture didn’t change–their interpretation did. Their “tradition” changed. . .

 

[john_doran]

The Roman Catholic church did not come into existence in a fullgrown state until 606 A.D., nearly 600 years after the Lord’s church was established in 33 A.D.

i’m curious to know where you got this date - can you provide your sources for this information?

also, what is the significance of the word “fullgrown” as you use it here? i mean, isn’t the implication of your statement that the RCC was actually in existence prior to 606AD, albeit in a (slightly?) different form?

thanks.

 

[Mickey]

John1717:

Therefore the tradition that was passed down was polluted, again leaving it unequal with the Word of God which is pure.
The Word of God sets men free (Jn.8:31-32), but does Tradition?

I don’t agree with one word of your reformed revisionist theology. And I will not debate you because I am not an apologist–I’ll leave that to someone else because it is obvious that you have had much experience in attempting to refute Catholic theology. You obviously love God and believe what you are saying. You truly believe Catholics are polluted and that is very sad. I will pray for you–and I will ask the Blessed Mother and all the angels and saints in heaven to pray for you also.

 

[john_doran]

Second Thessalonians 2:15: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

First of all, the apostle is speaking not of traditions passed down to the Thessalonians by someone else though word of mouth. This “tradition” is nothing other than doctrine that they had heard directly from Paul’s own lips during his ministry in their church. The Greek word translated “traditions” is paradosis, translated “ordinances” in the King James Version. The Greek root contains the idea of transmission, and the idea is no doubt doctrine that was transmitted by oral means. In this case, however, it refers only to Paul’s own preaching—not to someone else’s report of what Paul taught.

well, right - but isn’t that precisely the point? namely that paul himself told the thessalonians to rely on a source of doctrine other than the written word?

 

[RehLlits]

We are not speaking, regarding Catholic “Tradition”, of the traditions of men, are we? In fact, we are speaking of the Tradition of God. Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees, spoke strictly of “their” traditions–for example, their enlarging of their phylacteries to show holiness. He wasn’t condemning His own, God’s, traditions. He called for phylacteries for His chosen people. . .but not for ornate, self-aggrandizing ones like the Pharisees chose to make.
Or are you saying that God has no Tradition Himself?

God has laws and rules that He passed down to the Israelites and then overtime those traditions got polluted because man added to the words of God. That is why Christ fixed there error in tradition with Scripture over and over again as we find in the gospels.:ehh:

How interesting that you seem to flat out miss the “hold fast to the traditions which you have received, either in writing or by word of mouth?”

Oral tradition. Written tradition. Scripture is the written tradition that we have of God. Paul himself says so. . ."Hold fast to the traditions which we have taught you.

well, right - but isn’t that precisely the point? namely that Paul himself told the Thessalonian to rely on a source of doctrine other than the written word?

Exactly, Paul said hold on the the traditions both written (Scripture) and word of mouth (creeds and other oral traditions) that you were already taught. Key word is already. They had already been taught them and they should hold on to them because they are original. Now if tradition gets polluted over time it is fallible and not inerrant. Tradition gets its authority from Scripture. Scripture existed before tradition. Scripture is inerrant and tradition can grow to be polluted like Christ taught the Phrases.:tiphat:

 

[Benadam]

quote=John1717 An observation. Let us kindly observe that the church of Christ (a) is not a Jewish synagogue. The Old Testament, the foundation of Judaism, has been done away (Rom. 7:1-4; Colossians 2:14,17; Hebrews 8:8-13). Furthermore, (b) the church of Christ is not a Protestant denomination. All the denominations of our day were established by men, hundreds of years after the church of our Lord was established on Pentecost, Acts 2, A.D. 33 (Mark 9:1; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:1-4, 47). Denominational earmarks are conspicuously absent in the church of Christ: prayer altars, voting on baptismal candidates, mechanical instruments of music in worship, universal and terrirotial organizations, etc. (c) The church of Christ is not the Catholic Church… The Roman Catholic church did not come into existence in a fullgrown state until 606 A.D., nearly 600 years after the Lord’s church was established in 33 A.D. as previously observed. The cardinal doctrines of Catholicism are not in harmony with biblical teaching, as can be scripturally observed in many of the chapters composing this volume.

(2) The church defined . The word “church” is from the Greek word ecclesia, and means “the called out.” Thus, the church is that body of people who have been called out of the world by the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14), by obedience thereto (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Christ rules as the singular head of the church (Colossians 1:18), and the Spirit dwells within her (Ephesians 2:22, 23).

(3) The church is singular in number. There is one fold (John 10:16). The church is that fold (Acts 20:28). There is one body (Ephesians 4:4); that body is the church (Ephesians 1:22, 23). The Lord taught the monogamy of marriage (Romans 7:1-4) and the church is his bride (Ephesians 5:22-33).

The church of Christ is that one, true New Testament church which existed in the first century.

[/quote]

I agree with the characteristics you have pulled from scripture that define the true church. Ok you’ve made it clear which church’s are false. Can you point out for me again the true Church because I missed which one you said it was when you say it is ‘that’ one.

 

[dennisknapp]

quote=John1717 An observation. Let us kindly observe that the church of Christ (a) is not a Jewish synagogue. The Old Testament, the foundation of Judaism, has been done away (Rom. 7:1-4; Colossians 2:14,17; Hebrews 8:8-13). Furthermore, (b) the church of Christ is not a Protestant denomination. All the denominations of our day were established by men, hundreds of years after the church of our Lord was established on Pentecost, Acts 2, A.D. 33 (Mark 9:1; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:1-4, 47). Denominational earmarks are conspicuously absent in the church of Christ: prayer altars, voting on baptismal candidates, mechanical instruments of music in worship, universal and terrirotial organizations, etc. (c) The church of Christ is not the Catholic Church… The Roman Catholic church did not come into existence in a fullgrown state until 606 A.D., nearly 600 years after the Lord’s church was established in 33 A.D. as previously observed. The cardinal doctrines of Catholicism are not in harmony with biblical teaching, as can be scripturally observed in many of the chapters composing this volume.

(2) The church defined . The word “church” is from the Greek word ecclesia, and means “the called out.” Thus, the church is that body of people who have been called out of the world by the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14), by obedience thereto (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Christ rules as the singular head of the church (Colossians 1:18), and the Spirit dwells within her (Ephesians 2:22, 23).

(3) The church is singular in number. There is one fold (John 10:16). The church is that fold (Acts 20:28). There is one body (Ephesians 4:4); that body is the church (Ephesians 1:22, 23). The Lord taught the monogamy of marriage (Romans 7:1-4) and the church is his bride (Ephesians 5:22-33).

The church of Christ is that one, true New Testament church which existed in the first century.

[/quote]

Ok, now let’s think this one through…

“Bible” Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct?

So, let’s see how this logic plays out, shall we.

1. Early Christian were more like the “Bible” Christians of today, then say the Roman Catholic Church.
2. We have historical records of these early Christian by way of pagans, Jews and the early Christians themselves.
3. In the historical records is revealed what early Christians thought, believed and practiced.
4. In the historical records it reveals what the early Christians thought, believed and practiced is in line with Roman Catholic Teaching.

Therefore, premise 1 is false.

I love logic

Peace

 

[RehLlits]

As an evangelical Christian I believe the early RCC was on the ball with all of its teachings and was the original Church of Christ. But then the RCC started polluting the original message in the 3rd and 4th century (some historians believe it to be a little earlier).

I believe they did not hold fast to the traditions they were taught both in written (Scripture) and oral (Creeds and other oral traditions).:crying:

So I believe it like the Scriptures say that it is not the building that is the Church of Christ but the people. The people that put there full trust in Christ for there salvation. These people have existed throughout time, but they were not officially call the Church of Christ till the day of Pentecostal.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

RehLlits:

As an evangelical Christian I believe the early RCC was on the ball with all of its teachings and was the original Church of Christ. But then the RCC started polluting the original message in the 3rd and 4th century (some historians believe it to be a little earlier).

I believe they did not hold fast to the traditions they were taught both in written (Scripture) and oral (Creeds and other oral traditions).:crying:

So I believe it like the Scriptures say that it is not the building that is the Church of Christ but the people. The people that put there full trust in Christ for there salvation. These people have existed throughout time, but they were not officially call the Church of Christ till the day of Pentecostal.

The problem with this whole line of reasoning is the decision that x Christian teaching is a legitimate development, but x Christian teaching is a Catholic corruption is completely arbitrary. In other words, we have nothing but Superpope Martin Luther for example saying that the RCC “started polluting the original message”. On what authority? The Scripture? This only works if one assumes God dropped a compiled KJV bible from space directly into the hands of the Deformers.

Scott

 

[dennisknapp]

RehLlits:

As an evangelical Christian I believe the early RCC was on the ball with all of its teachings and was the original Church of Christ. But then the RCC started polluting the original message in the 3rd and 4th century (some historians believe it to be a little earlier).

I believe they did not hold fast to the traditions they were taught both in written (Scripture) and oral (Creeds and other oral traditions).:crying:

So I believe it like the Scriptures say that it is not the building that is the Church of Christ but the people. The people that put there full trust in Christ for there salvation. These people have existed throughout time, but they were not officially call the Church of Christ till the day of Pentecostal.

Do you have historical PROFF of what you say is true? Have you ever read what the early Christians believed and how it would compare to year beliefs? Have you compared what Christians before and after 300 believed?

Here is a great link. catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp

Peace

 

[Benadam]

RehLlits:

God has laws and rules that He passed down to the Israelites and then overtime those traditions got polluted because man added to the words of God. That is why Christ fixed there error in tradition with Scripture over and over again as we find in the gospels.:ehh:
Exactly, Paul said hold on the the traditions both written (Scripture) and word of mouth (creeds and other oral traditions) that you were already taught. Key word is already. They had already been taught them and they should hold on to them because they are original. Now if tradition gets polluted over time it is fallible and not inerrant. Tradition gets its authority from Scripture. Scripture existed before tradition. Scripture is inerrant and tradition can grow to be polluted like Christ taught the Phrases.:tiphat:

If you carry out the logic of primary expression as also being first in time in order to distinguish authority it’s obvious that a testimony that describes has no authority outside of the human element it is describing.

The tradition you dump isn’t a reality concocted in order to manipulate the People of God. Since the dawn of time and the first man who taught his son to invoke the name of God, there has been a tradition following and keeping in memory the lives making visible His Mystery. What you say is the source of God’s authority over Truth is that tradition’s written expression that began to develope after Moses.

The People who’s lives it recorded happened first and those lives are remembered orally and then written. Which is also the sequence of authority. The meaning of what is written must be heard from the mouth of the people who’s lives are remembered in the tradition that it’s the fruit of. Faith is by hearing don’t you agree? The words on the page make no noise at all.

So, if the People of God have a tradition that has followed and recorded their lives since the beginning, and that order was confirmed by God Himself in the flesh, how did the memory of the People of God become the authority over the People of God themselves? Again, what reveals what is authored with the highest authority? Who knows how true a biography is if not those who live the life it is recording?

If there was once a tradition that had been recording the lives that make visible the Word of God on earth since the beginning and continued after Our Lord’s earthly life, what could possibly make the moment you say it seized to have purpose anything but arbitrary?

 

[john_doran]

RehLlits:

Exactly, Paul said hold on the the traditions both written (Scripture) and word of mouth (creeds and other oral traditions) that you were already taught. Key word is already. They had already been taught them and they should hold on to them because they are original.

ok, i can accept that. but can you point out to me where it says that you are allowed to appeal to word of mouth as a source of moral and theological doctrine “just so long as it is original”?

Now if tradition gets polluted over time it is fallible and not inerrant. Tradition gets its authority from Scripture. Scripture existed before tradition. Scripture is inerrant and tradition can grow to be polluted like Christ taught the Phrases.:tiphat:

right. ***IF ***tradition gets polluted then it isn’t inerrant. can you demonstrate to me (A) that the Traditions of the catholic church are “polluted”, and (B) when it happened?

thanks.

 

[john_doran]

RehLlits:

Exactly, Paul said hold on the the traditions both written (Scripture) and word of mouth (creeds and other oral traditions) that you were already taught. Key word is already. They had already been taught them and they should hold on to them because they are original.

ok, i can accept that. but can you point out to me where it says that you are allowed to appeal to word of mouth as a source of moral and theological doctrine “as long as it is original”?

Now if tradition gets polluted over time it is fallible and not inerrant. Tradition gets its authority from Scripture. Scripture existed before tradition. Scripture is inerrant and tradition can grow to be polluted like Christ taught the Phrases.:tiphat:

right. ***IF ***tradition gets polluted then it is inerrant. can you demonstrate to me (A) that the Tradition of the catholic church are polluted, and (B) when it happened?

thanks.

 

[Church_Militant]

Your so called “early church tradition” is not the authority, Scripture is!

Thanks Guys…I love it when I don’t have always answer this dude…not tghat he listens anyway…