Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

[polgas733]

The church is it’s members. The word ekklesia is ‘called out ones’. Church isn’t a building or a teaching it is God’s children, God’s called out ones.

**I really find it funny that you said that the church is it’s members, because you are supporting apostolic succession.
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865) **
if the church is just God’s children, w/o God, w/o his teaching, w/o the Holy Spirit
there is no need for a church is there?

sounds like a picnic
How can there be a flock w/o a shepherd?

Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

 

[SemperReformada]

How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

please don’t say “we have the Holy Spirit with us”
because there is no way there can be morethan 30,000 Holy Spirit

and hence the word “Holy Spirit” it is not Plural

Were the books of the OT of use to the Jews?

 

[Dokimas]

I really find it funny that you said that the church is it’s members, because you are supporting apostolic succession. Sorry, I don’t follow your logic.
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)
if the church is just God’s children, w/o God, w/o his teaching, w/o the Holy Spirit
there is no need for a church is there? Where does the Holy Spirit reside? Where does the Word of God reside? In God’s children.

**sounds like a picnic
How can there be a flock w/o a shepherd? **Who is the Good Shepherd? There is but One Shepherd. The rest are hireling, are they not?****?

Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

So you too misunderstand the idea that the church is ‘invisible’. It is invisible in that it is made up of all believers of all times in all places. It is NOT a visible building. Every time you see a true believer, not just one who believes they believes, you see the church because each believer has all other believer within.

 

[Dokimas]

then you should also accept when he said “My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” (Jn 6:55),

You misunderstand again. I accept what Jesus says. I don’t agree (so I guess you could say accept) your understanding of what Jesus said.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

-Actually, he had a man of God, filled with the Holy Spirit, willing to obey God. It had NOTHING to do with the CC. It had EVERYTHING to do with God the Holy Spirit and an obedient man.

Philip was an apppointed man of the Church, chosen by Christ. It seems some cannot bring themself to imagine the Catholic Church was the Church of the Bible, that Protestantism was started through, even with history telling us that’s the way it was.

-Seeing as Jesus is the Head of the church and the Foundation of church and the Rock upon which the church is built and that Jesus and His church can’t be separated and that Jesus is the Word of God, Jesus is whats make both the Scriptures and the church the pillar and ground of truth. It is JESUS, and JESUS alone.

Scriptures don’t quite tell it that way. Scriptures tell us that Jesus was the cornerstone of the Church, the head of the body, which was built upon the foundation of the Apostles. Jesus never wrote anything or ordered anything scribed. He was the word. And the word built His Church upon Peter and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose. All of this has been explained repeatedly, word by word and point by point, but no same explanation is offered to show it any other way. It appears to be just another opportunity to deny the Catholic Church and all it’s beliefs to Catholics, and without any supporting scriptures or sources.

Now, show me from scriptures where I’m wrong. Show me where scriptures teach us to interpret scriptures for ourselves and that it’s acceptable for there to be different interpretations. Show us where scriptures specifically, or implied, tell us how to discern which interpretation is correct when there are many different interpretations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The church is it’s members. The word ekklesia is ‘called out ones’. Church isn’t a building or a teaching it is God’s children, God’s called out ones.

G1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see’-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

The Church is an assembly. An assembly is not invisible. As assembly is a gathering of God’s children, it’s not a scattering of people doing what they think is right and forget the rest. A Church is also what we call the buildings where we assemble. The Church is called Catholic, because it’s the one universal Church.

**Acts 9:31

(IGNT+) αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

kata holos
kat-ah’ hol’-os
Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.**

The Church was called Catholic, before the canon of the New Testament was defined.

Your argument is using semantics to maintain your view. You demonstrate this by only accepting a part of the definition of ekklesia and ignoring the rest.

Is there such a dislike, or hatred of the Catholic Church, that no point brought up can be agreed with, without the repeated unsubstantiated assertions that the Catholic Church is not the Church of the Bible? That’s the way some of these discussions make it appear, like ‘we must keep this wedge between us, at all costs.’

 

[Dokimas]

Philip was an apppointed man of the Church, chosen by Christ. It seems some cannot bring themself to imagine the Catholic Church was the Church of the Bible, that Protestantism was started through, even with history telling us that’s the way it was.

Scriptures don’t quite tell it that way. Scriptures tell us that Jesus was the cornerstone of the Church, the head of the body (**which is the church, is it not?), **which was built upon the foundation of the Apostles (which get all they are from Jesus within them. You can’t separate them from the Savior, making Jesus the real Foundation.). Jesus never wrote anything or ordered anything scribed. He was the word. And the word built His Church upon Peter (his understanding of who the Christ was) and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose. All of this has been explained repeatedly (aren’t you getting tired of repeating it???), word by word and point by point, but no same explanation is offered to show it any other way. It appears to be just another opportunity to deny the Catholic Church and all it’s beliefs (this is quite destorted, why are you destorting what I believe?) to Catholics, and without any supporting scriptures or sources. What you do is you show wonderful Scriptures and then tell us what they mean in contrast to what I understand them to be saying. How is that different than what I’ve done over and over again?

Now, show me from scriptures where I’m wrong. Show me where scriptures teach us to interpret scriptures for ourselves (**as you know I can’t and I’ve said so to you before. Why are we revisiting this?) **and that it’s acceptable for there to be different interpretations (Wrong interpretations range from being dangerous to making little to no eternal difference. As you will remember, I’ve NEVER said my understanding is always correct.). Show us where scriptures specifically, or implied, tell us how to discern which interpretation is correct when there are many different interpretations. Tell us what the Bereans did that the Holy Spirit seems ‘glad’ about.

 

[Dokimas]

G1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see’-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

The Church is an assembly. So the church isn’t just One, it is Many. I agree. An assembly is not invisible. As assembly is a gathering of God’s children, it’s not a scattering of people doing what they think is right and forget the rest. **If all the Christians were taken to Heaven right now, the teachings would still be here, but would the church still be here? ** A Church is also what we call the buildings where we assemble. The Church is called Catholic, because it’s the one universal Church.

**Acts 9:31

(IGNT+) αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

kata holos
kat-ah’ hol’-os
Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.**

The Church was called Catholic, before the canon of the New Testament was defined.

Your argument is using semantics to maintain your view. You demonstrate this by only accepting a part of the definition of ekklesia and ignoring the rest.

Is there such a dislike, or hatred of the Catholic Church, that no point brought up can be agreed with, without the repeated unsubstantiated assertions that the Catholic Church is not the Church of the Bible? That’s the way some of these discussions make it appear, like ‘we must keep this wedge between us, at all costs.’

Here’s the definition from the Greek lexicon:

1577 εκκλησια ekklesia ek-klay-see’-ah

from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; TDNT-3:501,394; n f

AV-church 115, assembly 3; 118

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
   1a) an assembly of the people convened at the publicplace of the council for the purpose of deliberating
   1b) the assembly of the Israelites
   1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
   1d) in a Christian sense
   1d1) an **assembly of Christians **gathered for worship in a religious meeting
   1d2) a company of Christians, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
   1d3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
   1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
   1d5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

For Synonyms see entry 5897​

Please point out where my understanding is different. TY.

 

[Dokimas]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
By the evidence you provide? Or because you don’t believe it?

Martin Luther, the original reformer recognized the Catholic Church to be the Church. He believed over years it became corrupted and was in need of a reformation. Or do you deny the Lutheran Church as well?

[SIGN] Doki’s response to ProdicalSon: Why are you destorting what I’ve said? [/SIGN]​

Could you please respond?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

.

You realize the difficulties of responding to all your points when you persist in posting within a quote, as I’ve pointed out a few times. Is there a purpose for that, other than deliberately making it difficult for all points to be responded too?

I don’t get tired of posting the word by word, point by point explanation of what took place in Matthew 16. I do get tired of the rejections, without the same type explanations to show how it was any other way. It really appears to be some take every opportunity just to say, the Catholic Church is wrong, but as I say, without any specific explanations of how it’s wrong. You say that I’m distorting, but these ‘uh uh’ tactics are not validated when not fully explained.

Now, you say I show wonderful scriptures with explanations that contrast how you believe them to be. Take the same time and effort to express your views so that others can see how they might possibly be wrong. That has not happened. Just the expression, ‘that’s not what I believe’ or ‘that’s not the Catholic Church’. Explain word by word, point by point so others can see your view, so they can be rebutted. I assure you, there will be an explanation with the Catholic rebuttal if we do not agree.

You can’t show us the scriptures that we should interpret for ourselves and how to discern which interpretation is correct when there are differences, because it’s not scriptural, implied or specifically. We revisit this when full explanations are rejected as wrong, without any supporting resources.

As you say interpretations range from dangerous to little to no external difference. Back that up as acceptable using scriptures. From what I read, we are to be of the same mind and judgment; of the same accord. I see no acceptance of differences, of any carnal measurement.

The Bereans were taught orally with authority, at which time some believed. Then they checked that teaching against scriptures and saw the teaching was logical and some believed. Yet what is overlooked by Protestants who use this example is, not all believed after checking the scriptures. This is an example of different private interpretations in scriptures themselves. Not all believed from the scriptures, after the authority of the Church preached truth to them, because they relied on their own private interpretation of scriptures.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here’s the definition from the Greek lexicon:

1577 εκκλησια ekklesia ek-klay-see’-ah

from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; TDNT-3:501,394; n f

AV-church 115, assembly 3; 118

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
   1a) an assembly of the people convened at the publicplace of the council for the purpose of deliberating
   1b) the assembly of the Israelites
   1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
   1d) in a Christian sense
   1d1) an **assembly of Christians **gathered for worship in a religious meeting
   1d2) a company of Christians, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
   1d3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
   1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
   1d5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

For Synonyms see entry 5897​

Please point out where my understanding is different. TY.

Because you choose to use a source providing a definition that uses semantics to avoid using the word ‘church’. I provided the Strong’s dictionary definition, which is used by all Christian faiths, that do not have a bias to maintain. For example, what do they call that ‘public place’ mentioned a few times in the Lexicon’s definition? Where do those religious meetings take place? It’s called a Church. A Church is a place for a religious meeting for the purposes of worship. The gathering of the assembly is not ‘invisible’. Those assemblies that met in as prescribed in the Bible had appointed people in charge. It was orderly and not a ‘free for all’.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

[SIGN] Doki’s response to ProdicalSon: Why are you destorting what I’ve said? [/SIGN]​

Could you please respond?

The Protestant reformation came from the Catholic Church. They did not dispute the Catholic Church was the Church of the Bible. The original founder of Protestantism founded a Church called the Lutheran Church. If the Catholic Church was not the Church of the Bible as you claim, then you have just removed the validity of the Lutheran Church.

It’s really that simple. If the Catholic Church became so corruptible that a drastic reform was necessary to the point a new Church had to be founded and that Church was Protestant, why aren’t you a Lutheran? Why are there thousands of denominations of Protestantism?

Because they took an infallible book and fallibly interpreted it and pronounced their interpretation as correct over the others. Does that sound like someone claiming infallibility? There is no difference. If you reject my interpretation because your interpretation is correct, you have just told me your interpretation is infallible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Scriptures don’t quite tell it that way. Scriptures tell us that Jesus was the cornerstone of the Church, the head of the body, which was built upon the foundation of the Apostles. Jesus never wrote anything or ordered anything scribed. He was the word. And the word built His Church upon Peter and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose. All of this has been explained repeatedly, word by word and point by point, but no same explanation is offered to show it any other way. It appears to be just another opportunity to deny the Catholic Church and all it’s beliefs to Catholics, and without any supporting scriptures or sources.

Now, show me from scriptures where I’m wrong. Show me where scriptures teach us to interpret scriptures for ourselves and that it’s acceptable for there to be different interpretations. Show us where scriptures specifically, or implied, tell us how to discern which interpretation is correct when there are many different interpretations.

Eph 2:19 ¶ Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

1Cr 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Your analysis is not quite right. The foundation is not built upon the Apostles but Christ as the cornerstone. They are built upon Christ. It is a clear distinction one must keep to understand.
As far as different interpretations, I would absolutely love to have everyone agree with our interpretation. Everyone here would. You, having read this whole thread, keep asserting that somehow this does not apply to you as well. When a thread is started to question Protestants, which is what this forum seems to consist of, you have to ask yourself the same question; when your doctrine, beliefs, and practices do not match up to the Bible, in our estimation, simply asserting the preeminence of your church based upon its chronological age is going to be unimpressive.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Protestant reformation came from the Catholic Church. They did not dispute the Catholic Church was the Church of the Bible. The original founder of Protestantism founded a Church called the Lutheran Church. If the Catholic Church was not the Church of the Bible as you claim, then you have just removed the validity of the Lutheran Church.

It’s really that simple. If the Catholic Church became so corruptible that a drastic reform was necessary to the point a new Church had to be founded and that Church was Protestant, why aren’t you a Lutheran? Why are there thousands of denominations of Protestantism?

Because they took an infallible book and fallibly interpreted it and pronounced their interpretation as correct over the others. Does that sound like someone claiming infallibility? There is no difference. If you reject my interpretation because your interpretation is correct, you have just told me your interpretation is infallible.

Why are there thousands of denominations or groups that cling to scripture AND tradition?
Long before the Protestant reformation, the different groups split. Now, there are thousands of groups that cling to scripture and tradition.

 

[Dokimas]

Because you choose to use a source providing a definition that uses semantics to avoid using the word ‘church’. I provided the Strong’s dictionary definition, which is used by all Christian faiths, that do not have a bias to maintain. For example, what do they call that ‘public place’ mentioned a few times in the Lexicon’s definition? Where do those religious meetings take place? It’s called a Church. A Church is a place for a religious meeting for the purposes of worship. The gathering of the assembly is not ‘invisible’. Those assemblies that met in as prescribed in the Bible had appointed people in charge. It was orderly and not a ‘free for all’.

They met at people’s homes and they met out doors (as Jesus did with them). The Greek word has a secular meaning and an application by Christians.

 

[Dokimas]

The Protestant reformation came from the Catholic Church. They did not dispute the Catholic Church was the Church of the Bible. The original founder of Protestantism founded a Church called the Lutheran Church. If the Catholic Church was not the Church of the Bible as you claim, then you have just removed the validity of the Lutheran Church.

It’s really that simple. If the Catholic Church became so corruptible that a drastic reform was necessary to the point a new Church had to be founded and that Church was Protestant, why aren’t you a Lutheran? Why are there thousands of denominations of Protestantism?

Because they took an infallible book and fallibly interpreted it and pronounced their interpretation as correct over the others. Does that sound like someone claiming infallibility? There is no difference. If you reject my interpretation because your interpretation is correct, you have just told me your interpretation is infallible.

I’m not sure you responded to our conversation, but that’s the problem when the whole conversation is not brought forward.​

The Truth is infallible, an interpretation is either correct or incorrect, IMO. I think it is an important distinction.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your analysis is not quite right. The foundation is not built upon the Apostles but Christ as the cornerstone. They are built upon Christ. It is a clear distinction one must keep to understand.
As far as different interpretations, I would absolutely love to have everyone agree with our interpretation. Everyone here would. You, having read this whole thread, keep asserting that somehow this does not apply to you as well. When a thread is started to question Protestants, which is what this forum seems to consist of, you have to ask yourself the same question; when your doctrine, beliefs, and practices do not match up to the Bible, in our estimation, simply asserting the preeminence of your church based upon its chronological age is going to be unimpressive.

You provide a verse that states exactly what I said and then say my analysis is not quite right?

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone

When our doctrines, beliefs and practices do not match up according to your private interpretation? Now, we have to have the scriptures that show us how to know which interpretation is correct? The many different interpretations taught through the many denominations, started in the 1500s or later, or through the Traditions of the Church from the beginning of the Church.

You deny we are to hold to the traditions and ordinances that Paul spoke of? Do you deny the Church being the pillar and foundation of truth? How many scriptures have we provided to hear, no you’re wrong? But no explanations of the scriptures we provide. No answers to many questions we ask, or points we raise. We’re just wrong because your interpretation doesn’t agree with a 2000 year old interpretation passed down through Church’s Tradition. It’s not because it’s old, it’s because it was and is a part of the Church that Christ built.**

 

[Dokimas]

ProdicalSon: By the evidence you provide? Or because you don’t believe it?

Martin Luther, the original reformer recognized the Catholic Church to be the Church. He believed over years it became corrupted and was in need of a reformation. Or do you deny the Lutheran Church as well?

Here’s the distorted quote I don’t think you’ve really directly commented on.​

For example: I provided not evidence.​

For example: I don’t deny the Lutheran Church or the CC. And in context, your question makes no sense unless you are saying the CC is the One church and the Lutheran church is the One church. I do say they are not THE One church but many of their members are part of the One True Church.​

They both exist so it would be foolish to deny them. I don’t happen to agree with all the teaching of both churches. Being fallible myself, I’d be stupid to deny the possibility of their teachings in question are correct.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why are there thousands of denominations or groups that cling to scripture AND tradition?
Long before the Protestant reformation, the different groups split. Now, there are thousands of groups that cling to scripture and tradition.

Please identify one of those different groups, that split, that you’re willing to affliate your beliefs with? Gnostics, Arians, who?

 

[Rightlydivide]

You provide a verse that states exactly what I said and then say my analysis is not quite right?

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone

When our doctrines, beliefs and practices do not match up according to your private interpretation? Now, we have to have the scriptures that show us how to know which interpretation is correct? The many different interpretations taught through the many denominations, started in the 1500s or later, or through the Traditions of the Church from the beginning of the Church.

You deny we are to hold to the traditions and ordinances that Paul spoke of? Do you deny the Church being the pillar and foundation of truth? How many scriptures have we provided to hear, no you’re wrong? But no explanations of the scriptures we provide. No answers to many questions we ask, or points we raise. We’re just wrong because your interpretation doesn’t agree with a 2000 year old interpretation passed down through Church’s Tradition. It’s not because it’s old, it’s because it was and is a part of the Church that Christ built.**

The church is built on Christ. That is what the passages indicate with the Apostles and prophets being built on him.
I absolutely deny that you hold to the traditions and ordinances that Paul spoke of. Of course I do and you think the same thing of us. Your traditions are not 2000 years old. Some are 1900. Some are 1800. Some are 1700. And we can go on and on.

Lets take the Assumption of Mary for example. Surely you cannot deny the earliest bishops writing on the matter clearly states that she could have died, been martyred, or taken but NO ONE knows what happened. No one being…no one. So how old is that Sacred Tradition?
On another note, you keep bringing up the 1500 figure. You are aware of what happened to the men who tried to start this movement earlier?