I am so very sorry that I seem unable to get across the point I am attempting to make. Let me try one last time. You are reading the bible literally here. You are basically saying that it says what it means, and means what it says. This is as a fundamentalist would, and as an aside I would argue that the RCC does not read the bible in this fashion. No matter. The point is, that biblical experts go behind the actual text to some degree. The study other writings, they look at context, and writing patterns.
For instance it is commonly held by almost all scholars that Genesis was written by at least 4 different people, and the resulting document is piecing together of those writers by a “redactor.”
All of the NT books have gone through dozens of copying. We know they are not all the same, since we have literally thousands to compare and there are minor differences and sometimes major ones. Many scholars for instance don’t believe that Paul was the actual author of all the materials attributed to him.
As to the issue of Jesus starting a church, some scholars believe that through the various revisions and redactions, these verses were added or altered to make it clear that it refers to the resultant church. That these in fact were not the actual words of Jesus. Now, no one is suggesting that this was done for evil purposes, rather it is accepted that the redactor/scribe believed that this was the true intent of the words, and so changed them accordingly to make sure there was no mistake.
So citing passages to me proves nothing.
So the mere fact of seeing the world Church in the bible is not an indication that that was invisioned at the time.
the teaching was based on recall of the teachings of Jesus and whatever inspired information was given to the teacher. Paul claimed much through divine revelation. His were the earliest writings, and his earliest I believe was in the 50’s CE. When the apostles refer to scripture in the NT they are referring to most the OT, and perhaps at the later writings, some of Pauls.
I agree that oral tradition is tradition. Parts of the bible are oral tradition written down. Paul’s writings are more likely to be original since often he was simply answering questions and problems experienced in various communities throughout the middle east.
We aren’t discussing sola scripture here at all.
I agree, there was not any NT scripture for the first twenty years.
I don’t have to remember the obvious. Of course the Reformers had been Catholic. They would argue that they carried forth the true traditions of the Universal Church, while the RCC fell into error. I am not here to argue that, just telling you that that is how they would see it. As I have said before, if being first is essential to your belief, then I would assume you must believe that.
LOL She also interpets the scripture in a spiritual, allergorical, and moral sense. Paragraph 115-117 CCC. First and foremost She uses the literal sense. Where do you come up with these conclusions?
