sola scriptura

[Eufrosnia]

Okay. There’s nothing here I really disagree with other than your identification of it as the Latin communion. No…I do not believe that everyone is being lead into mutually exclusive truths. I don’t for a moment think that, say, Presbyterians are being lead by the Spirit into practicing infant baptism. They’re dead wrong. When Catholics ask us that question, about the Spirit, it’s based on an assumption that we do actually think the Spirit is doing that. We are not relativists (ok, liberal Protestants are, as well as liberal Catholics, but they’re irrelevent). I’m glad you’re not a relativist either.

All I see here to be honest is someone who is unwilling to question ones own position as to how it is reasonable. You Mr Bard have accepted a lot of things without any reason. Now you are trying to make up reasons for it as you go perhaps but you don’t even bother with that sometimes.

Has it occurred to you that if you actually spent the time looking in to that question of how one arrives at the truth that “Bible is the Word of God”, then you will certainly cease to be Protestant at the least? Also for the love of God, be critical about your own position!!! Don’t try to answer theologically when your question is one of logical nature. You cannot use Biblical quotes to justify belief in the Bible. So avoid stuff like that.

All your theological debate is moot because you are just arguing interpretations. Unless you know which interpretation has authority, it is a subjective opinion as to which fits best.

Now if you are honestly seeking the truth, please think about that. As I said to Jon, what do you have to lose? One case, you become Catholic. Other case, you remain Protestant. So please give it a shot. I will guarantee you if nothing, it will at least help you explain your Protestant faith better to an agnostic who is honestly looking for REASONS to accept the truths of Christianity.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Now I’m confused. So, you agree with this?

Yes. There is only one Church. Visibly, that Church is fractured and spread throughout many congregations that go by denominational names. All of them have the Church present within them, to a lesser or greater extent.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes. There is only one Church. Visibly, that Church is fractured and spread throughout many congregations that go by denominational names. All of them have the Church present within them, to a lesser or greater extent.

How on earth do you know such profound truths? I mean we should just make you Pope. You seem to know so well about the condition of the Church and how truth has been distributed.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

How on earth do you know such profound truths? I mean we should just make you Pope. You seem to know so well about the condition of the Church and how truth has been distributed.

Is the hostility really necessary?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

People do just hand out bibles. Happens all the time. This discussion is getting tired. No one is going to convince the other of their position. It’s nice to discuss, but points and counter points were made several posts ago. This thread is just going in circles.

You know things are bad when the Lutheran plays peacemaker.

 

[CopticChristian]

Not quite. The differences, inspite of your opinion, are relativley minor, especially when compared to widespread beliefs of Protestant denominations. The only thing the Protestant denominations have in common is their rejection of the Catholic Church. The heart of the Church, the sacraments, have been held in common by both the CC and the EO for 2000 years.

Steve,

One of the key things to aid in the understanding of the cognitave dissonance of Protestant thought is to realize that Gaelic points out many times the EO, Catholic issue of Papal infallibility and other differences as a reference for difference of Protestant belief. He makes suggestions saying that there are at least 3 groups claiming Apostolic Succession. Here there is a point of reference lacking.

Oriental Orthodox
Eastern Orthodox
Catholic Latin/East

All claim Apostolic Succesion and they are all correct. Gaelic sees this as a point of contention.

They all also claim infallibility. This is the focus. The EO claim infallibility of Councils or groups of bishops and the Catholic Latin/East claims infallibility of a Bishop for the Catholic. So this is something that the East and West can settle. They both agree on infallibility. Protestants cannot agree on this and to point this out as a problem is only a problem because the issue is that all are correct in claiming Apostolic Succession and all are correct in claiming infallibility. No Protestant claims infallibility.

Next, take the passage that is available in Scripture and the copy of the work that Gaelic reads that he has yet to prove is Scripture.

13But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Sola Scriptura and denial of Oral Tradition are a void in the Protestant map in the mind of those that see only Sola Translation. If the above passage is true then we should be able to see Sola Scriptura and denial of Oral Tradition in the Old Testament. Did they just give Jews an Old Testament and run around holding hands saying they were having a personal relationship with their book and God?

The following information comes from work of David Armstrong…

THE JEWISH LAW, OR TORAH, WAS NOT EXCLUSIVELY WRITTEN DOWN

A) Oral law in Judaism corresponds to oral tradition in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2) and Catholic tradition.

B) In its interpretive and developmental aspects, Jewish oral law is similar to Catholic development of dogma and historical growth of conciliar and magisterial understanding of Christian teaching.

C) The Jews believed that the “oral Torah” went back to Moses on Mt. Sinai and ultimately to God, and was received simultaneously with the written Torah. Likewise, Catholics believe that Catholic tradition was received simultaneously from the apostles – who received it from Jesus – with the “gospel,” which itself was eventually formulated into the New Testament.

The analogy to sola Scriptura is untenable. Jews accepted the oral Torah as equally authoritative. The Canon of the Old Testament was gradually formed. The Pentateuch was authoritatively collected 500 years after David and authoritative and binding talmudic speculation and interpretation flourished even after the Old Testament had been completed and organized.

Now we should see in the world as well evidence that complements our understanding.

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

While Gaelic and other Protestants deny Oral Tradition, the world sees it, suggesting unsanity or nonconormity to known facts in the world that is filtered and deleted in the mind of Protestant thinking…see here that the Secular world sees, knows and writes of Oral Tradition.

journal.oraltradition.org/issues/25i

Oral Tradition in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

Oral Tradition Volume 25, Number 1March 2010

generalsemantics.org/

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You know things are bad when the Lutheran plays peacemaker.

 

[JonNC]

You know things are bad when the Lutheran plays peacemaker.

Hey!! I represent that remark.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh yeah, that. What I mean is that God draws all men (and women) to himself through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, so in that way they are being lead. He is not guiding people into error, however. So if two disagree, we can be certain that at least one of them is not being guided by the Holy Spirit in reaching their erroneous conclusion. That has come from themselves. I believe that insofar as one rejects what the Catholic Church teaches, they are not being lead by the Holy Spirit, but rather by their own beloved notions or, in some cases, by another spirit. There is much good and much truth in all Christian faith traditions, but Christ started only one Church and the promise to guide it into all truth was made to only to that one Church which is alive and kicking today.

 

[CopticChristian]

---

Yes. There is only one Church. Visibly, that Church is fractured and spread throughout many congregations that go by denominational names. All of them have the Church present within them, to a lesser or greater extent.

Gaelic,

This is evidence of an unsane viewpoint, unsane as defined by Alfred Korzybski. It does not conform to reality in the world and the word of 'God, you only have a Translation, that you cannot prove is the word of God…says…

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

In the world this is inconsistent with reality…

This statement says…bsed on the thinking of disobedient, sinful, stiff necked and dissenting Catholics that stole the Bible from the Church, translated it without authority by sin creating this thought process…

You change your mind to conform to mine, the map of Christianity in my mind, that does not conform to Revealed truths, history and what is known…if Jesus is Lord of all He is Lord of History and that History should conform to this thinking and it does not…your map of Christianity suggests that all these that you describe worship in unity if they are the Chruch and the OT says otherwise…

19The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20“Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” 21Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22“You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23“But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24“God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Why did Jesus not just say, hey you believe in God, I am He…you got a book, defecient but like ours…no problem…we be the same…all one people worshiping in unity…no, He made it clear…you worship what you don’t know…for to understand and accept all revealed truth is to worship all that can be known…for to accept what is Revealed is to worship in spirit and truth…

The Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox are not denominations. If you agree then your map excludes Christian thought that was created and handed down by the Apostles. If you include these then you insult the OHCAC as the OHCAC is not a denomination, not a congregation…it is the OHCAC…

This is an invitation to cognitave dissonance and to think like this and join you I would be unable to prove that the Word is God is truly Scripture. No thank you.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

True, that.

One has to wonder what the purpose is for Wednesday evening Bible study, or for pastors to attend Bible college. Why not just tell everyone, “Read the Bible, folks! It’s all you need!”

In fact, I wonder if any Bible Christian would allow a stranger off the street to come and preach at his church, if this stranger simply said, “Why, I’m a follower of Christ and I preach from the Bible!”

Nope. No church elder would be foolish enough to allow someone to preach at his church simply based on the fact that he says he preaches from the Bible. :nope:

Hello PR, I wonder if there would be any of these Bible churches if there were no Bibles?

What in the world would they preach?

Matthew

 

[CopticChristian]

Hello PR, I wonder if there would be any of these Bible churches if there were no Bibles?

What in the world would they preach?

Matthew

Matthew,

Who knows. They would do well to study the Bible Translation that they cannot prove is Scripture…

13But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

If they studied how God handles those that dissent they would find the following…

What happened to the Kingdom of David. Solomon became the Priest/King and in time there was dissent, disobedience, sin and stiff neck stubborness.

After the death of Solomon in about 931 BCE, all the Israelite tribes except for Judah and Benjamin (called the ten northern tribes) refused to accept Rehoboam, the son and successor of Solomon, as their king The rebellion against Rehoboam arose after he refused to lighten the burden of taxation and services that his father had imposed on his subjects.

Jeroboam, who was not of the Davidic line, was sent for from Egypt by the malcontents. The Tribe of Ephraim and all Israel raised the old cry, “Every man to his tents, O Israel” Rehoboam fled to Jerusalem,and in 930 BCE (some date it in 920 BCE), Jeroboam was proclaimed king over all Israel at Shechem.

The Northern Kingdom did not worship in the temple and were dispersed. They had the book. Without the unity of Truth in the Kingdom they ultimately were destroyed by the Assyrians and some of that history is recorded in the book of Tobit.

So dissent, disunity, not worshiping in the Temple that represented the living God led to flourishing, MegaSynagogues, people on the streets preaching Me/God/and the Old Testament….no disorganization and destruction.

 

[Traverse]

Oh jeez, there’s a lot for me to catch up on! Let me see what I can do…

Certainly. But we don’t go to ONLY Scripture. That’s, well, un-Scriptural.

Jesus’ “words” (that is, Divine Revelation) come to us in two forms: Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

To claim that Jesus’ “words” were contained wholly and entirely to the Scripture would be to prompt this question: “Where does the Bible say this?”

(Answer: nowhere.)

It’s more a common sense conclusion. Oral tradition isn’t going to survive that long with much accuracy. Now if the tradition is preserved by the holy spirit that’s another matter, but I also don’t see evidence for that conclusion. If there is, please show me.

What about after the death of the last apostle and before the existence of the codex of the Bible? That’s about 400 years.

What did the Christians do then?

400 years. That’s like the time from when the Pilgrims arrived on Plymouth Rock until our present day without a Constitution! Can you imagine how long that is to not have a written rule or foundation?

I already covered this actually, but it was probably easy to miss. There wasn’t a gap between the existence of the bible and the death of the last apostle. It doesn’t make sense for the writings, which we know for certain were in existence, to have been ignored for 200-400 years. The church, gifted with the holy spirit, would have the ability to discern them right away. Why wouldn’t it?

 

[Traverse]

Traverse, the Catholic Church was established 2,000 years ago by Jesus, and the Catholic Church today believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Sacramental Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and apostolic succession handed on through Bishops through the laying of hands. You can claim all you want but you are not following the teachings of “that Church”. Put the bible aside and read what the Church was saying & believing before the bible ever existed. You think you know but you do not… www.scripturecatholic.com

Well this is a matter I’m currently studying so I’m not really trying to argue this right now. I am debating the merits of sola scriptura, sure, but for my own growth and understanding. I’m not trying to convince you.

No confusion. Show me in the bible where Christ said he would extend the fullness of Truth to a church 1900 years later. Show me how your church has apostolic succession all the way to St. Peter. Show me how your church is the PIllar and Foundation of Truth. Show me how your church knows better than the pastor down the street.

Well, I never said this happened. In fact, I said the opposite. I said that He founded His church and that church has remained forever. The question was whether or not the catholic church is, in fact, that church. Currently I do not see compelling evidence that that is the case.

Your church is taking a Catholic book, written by, for and about the Catholic Church and describing a different doctrine that what is in scripture and different than what that early “Church” believed. It is practicing solo scriptura as I’ve shown you. Your church website references 2 Timothy 16 to support this and yet 2 Timothy 16 says nothing about solo scriptura. This is a false teaching.

You haven’t shown me that. I disagreed with your assertion that it’s solo and not sola. Furthermore, you haven’t shown me anything that I believe to be different than what the early church believed. In fact, this whole thread is about sola scriptura, not the specific beliefs of a church I attend. That would be more suitable to another thread.

scripture verse? Your comment does not reflect scripture. What did the apostles do? They preached & proclaimed the truth everywhere they went. Nothing different here. Catholic’s don’t “judge” your eternal destiny, heaven or hell. That is scripture. But we do proclaim the truth in Christ. That is biblical.

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re saying here. I don’t see the point you’re making.

We go to scripture too…and the teaching passed on through the apostles to their descendants… Tradition

Yes, I understand this. What I don’t understand is how you can verify the accuracy of this tradition. Saying “the church decides that” is really easy, but why can’t my church decide that or any other church? Why is the sacred tradition that the orthodox church keeps somehow not a worthy claim?

The Holy Spirit is still here providing many gifts. Just make sure you are bapitized.

I’ve talked about this elsewhere, but my point isn’t that the holy spirit is now silent and doing nothing, but there’s no mistaking that the presence of spiritual gifts in the first century was quite different than it is today.

No. You probably only have 66 books…missing books from the Old Testament, removed by a printing company. This is what that early Church had in 400AD…70 books. Again, you do not follow that early church, not fully.

This is a subject for another topic as well, and certainly a great discussion. The validity of the actual scripture someone holds is super important, but the argument for sola scriptura remains whether you’re holding what you deem a complete bible or not.

Authoritive understanding of the bible and the application to faith and morals comes from the Catholic Church as Jesus himself promised to lead his church to all Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)

Is not the church, the body of Christ, the people? Why do you think this verse calls for a magisterium?

Your pastor and the pastors down the street aren’t even using the complete written Word of God. They are missing 7 books. Confusion reigns on faith and morals…every one is saying something different. How can you not be confused: abortion, contraception, baptism saved, infant baptism, OSAS … on and on.

How else did he come to that conclusion following solo scriptura? That’s a big contradiction because the bible says thou shalt not divorce.

How do the orthodox come to different conclusions when they adhere to sacred tradition?

Traverse, do you want to start a solo scriptura thread?

No, that doesn’t seem like it would make sense.

 

[PRmerger]

Hello PR, I wonder if there would be any of these Bible churches if there were no Bibles?

What in the world would they preach?

Matthew

Well, they could preach the kerygma, if they wanted to, without the Bible. But they would need the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition in order to do this.

 

[Traverse]

I can see your point. However, we have a consistent record from the successors of the Apostles that the Church called itself Catholic from the beginnine.

Please show me. I’ve never seen such a thing. I’ve seen things like "according to tradition, this happened in history, but since I can’t trust your sacred tradition I can’t trust statements like that. At least not yet.

1 Cor 11:19-20
19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.

Does not this statement imply that the disciples are already in posession of the criteria by which those who are genuine can be discerned?

It does indeed! I don’t see your point though. Are you suggesting that because the bible wasn’t around yet, yet they could discern who is genuine, that therefore the bible alone is not needed? It is a worthy argument, but it only works if you can prove to me that the gifts of the holy spirit in the first century were not temporary. The bible even claims they are to be temporary and truthfully I haven’t seen them occur in this modern age. If they are still present it should be easy to walk into a catholic church and see this happen on a regular basis, because, after all, it happened on a regular basis in the first century as evidence for non believers.

I think you will find that what appear to be “scriptural errors” are really a matter of perceptions. Since the Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures both came from the same Source (the Holy Spirit) there are no errors in either of them, and it is not possible for them to contradict one another.

That may very well be true. Certainly there is more and more I’ve learned about the catholic faith that were easily perceived wrongly on my part for a long time. But this isn’t the topic for going over each and every thing that I currently perceive as error.

 

[PRmerger]

Saying “the church decides that” is really easy, but why can’t my church decide that or any other church?

Because your church doesn’t claim the charism of infallibility. It claims to be fallible.

Which means that it’s going to be wrong at some point in its doctrinal assertions.

Going. To. Be. Wrong.

That’s* huge,* don’t you think?

 

[CopticChristian]

Well this is a matter I’m currently studying so I’m not really trying to argue this right now. I am debating the merits of sola scriptura, sure, but for my own growth and understanding. I’m not trying to convince you.

Well, I never said this happened. In fact, I said the opposite. I said that He founded His church and that church has remained forever. The question was whether or not the catholic church is, in fact, that church. Currently I do not see compelling evidence that that is the case.

You haven’t shown me that. I disagreed with your assertion that it’s solo and not sola. Furthermore, you haven’t shown me anything that I believe to be different than what the early church believed. In fact, this whole thread is about sola scriptura, not the specific beliefs of a church I attend. That would be more suitable to another thread.

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re saying here. I don’t see the point you’re making.

Yes, I understand this. What I don’t understand is how you can verify the accuracy of this tradition. Saying “the church decides that” is really easy, but why can’t my church decide that or any other church? Why is the sacred tradition that the orthodox church keeps somehow not a worthy claim?

I’ve talked about this elsewhere, but my point isn’t that the holy spirit is now silent and doing nothing, but there’s no mistaking that the presence of spiritual gifts in the first century was quite different than it is today.

This is a subject for another topic as well, and certainly a great discussion. The validity of the actual scripture someone holds is super important, but the argument for sola scriptura remains whether you’re holding what you deem a complete bible or not.

Is not the church, the body of Christ, the people? Why do you think this verse calls for a magisterium?

**
How do the orthodox come to different conclusions when they adhere to sacred tradition?**

No, that doesn’t seem like it would make sense.

Traverse,

Conclusions are the same, the understanding is different…

Infalliblity is agreed upon…the understanding is different

What it is that is believed and taught is similar, explained differently…

The Eucharist is the Eucharist…yet if you read explanation and understanding of the Eucharist there are different views and understanding…none will deny the Eucharist…

Mary is the Theotokos…Mary is not God…the relationship of Mary is seen and viewed with different understanding however that does not detract from Eucharistic centered worship.

We all die and what happens after death is understood and explained differently…that we pray for the dead is agreed on…the explanations do not change that.

Scripture and Tradition are agreed on and that view is hammered out by the Bishops.

 

[PRmerger]

How do the orthodox come to different conclusions when they adhere to sacred tradition?

What different conclusions do you mean? The only one I can think of is papal supremacy vs “first among equals”.

Is there some other doctrinal difference you think the Orthodox tradition proclaims?

 

[Traverse]

Where in the Bible does it claim that all the inspired writings are contained in it?

What prevents there from being other inspired writings that are not in the canon?

However, I do agree with you, and we don’t consider them inspired either, just authentic historical evidence of what the Apostles believed and taught.

Since you agree with me anyway I guess this isn’t worth arguing. So let’s move on!

This model is not consistent with the historical record.

Please enlighten me. This is not a sarcastic statement.

I agree with you, but then, that is not what it says.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

What is it that equips? It is the teaching, the reproof, the correction and the training in righteousness that equips the believers for the work of the ministry. Scripture is inspired and “useful” in these tasks. But to whom did God give the responsibility of equipping the saints, using Scripture?

Eph 4:11-14
11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

These duties are given to PEOPLE, not books, however Holy. In the hands of those gifted and authorized to do this teaching, reproving, correcting and training Scripture is useful.

If Jesus thought the Scripture was all that is needed, He would not have provided these other gifts to the church, and given THEM the duty of equipping the saints.

While I disagree with your conclusion, that if scripture was all that was needed he would not have provided gifts to the church, I find that you make a great point and I shall meditate upon it. Good work!

Why?

If Scripture is all that is needed, why not just hand out bibles?

The importance of the church cannot be denied. I’m saying the church uses the bible for its teachings and if you just give someone a bible (while not an altogether bad idea) you’re not helping them understand the fellowship involved if you don’t try and talk with them.

Then the establishment of a Church, with the gifts of ministers was a waste of His time, I guess.

Hey, now. I never said that. Even with sola scriptura the establishment of roles in the church plays a vital role. The bible attests to the importance of fellowship, the need for holy communion together and not separately, and the need for us to be stirred up by way of reminder. The need for encouragement so that we may stay strong and observe the commandments is one of the most important thing that the church provides. If you’re alone, no matter how well you understand the word, you’re not going to have people around you encouraging you to stay honest and resist temptation.

Perhaps you have yet to ponder how the stories in Genesis that predated Moses came to Moses?

Are you suggesting that Moses learned oral tradition and then recorded it and did not at all receive his words from the Holy Spirit?

Perhaps you have yet to ponder that the experience of Christ on the Cross defies containment in writing?

I don’t see how this is relevant. I would argue that the experience defies containment in oral tradition as well. None of us were there.

Yes. Another Protestant innovation that cannot be found in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says the opposite!

Please show me.

It is interesting that you reject the structure that Jesus set up, in favor of your own.

Please illustrate to me how I reject the structure Jesus set up. If I do not acknowledge sacred tradition then I certainly would reject a portion, but the structure of the church is quite clear in the new testament and that is what I adhere to. The only thing missing are popes, cardinals, and so forth. The authority of Peter is never said to be above the other apostles (beyond perhaps a spokesperson) and never said to be passed on, according to scripture. The hard time I have is not the acceptance of sacred tradition, but how something as important as popes and cardinals and other structures of the catholic faith would not be recorded in a book that goes out of its way to record so much of church structure.

vQUOTE=Traverse;10278598] We see secular history as having much value, but we don’t derive doctrine from that history not recorded in scripture.

But does not that extra-biblical history give witness to how the successors of the Apostles understood their doctrine?

Sure. The super early writings anyway. The further you are removed from the original apostles the less I trust anything popping up hundreds of years later to be a reliable teaching of the apostles supposedly passed down.