It certainly a “gotcha” question. The question is meant to show catholics that they shouldn’t use proof texts to prove a point when they can’t accurately define the key term which in this case is “tradition”.
Thank you for admitting this. Now please be consistent and admit that you are being extremely dishonest in this. You have repeatedly tried to focus this argument on one thing only: the production of a list of traditions that matches what Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians.
You are extremely dishonest because you are unwilling to discuss other explanations that demonstration that your question is errant and nonsensical in the first place. You are asking for an answer that would contradict the Scripture itself.
Furthermore, in addition to being intellectually dishonest in your unwillingness to accept anything except one pre-conceived, text-contradicting explanation to 2 Thessalonians, you are refusing to answer any other questions or engage in any other discussion unless you get your self-contradictory answer. This is nonsense.
Please, have the courage to discuss this matter honestly.
You have no way of proving what “tradition” is in this instance so you don’t know if the traditions Paul speaks of were recorded or not or if they were doctrine related. You simply can’t define what tradition is in this instance. Catholics read too much into “tradition” every time they see the word in the scriptures or in the writings of the church fathers.
Can you prove the existence of God in a strictly physical, finite, and fully defined sense like you are requiring of the enumeration of tradition that Paul refers to? You cannot. Another demonstration that your request is nonsensical and self-contradictory.
Again I ask, and hopefully you will address my argument and those earlier, can the infinite God be contained in a finite mind, book, list, writing, or even time period? If not, your idea that the Truth given to His Church could be contained in any of those is simply impossible, and so another explanation must be found. We can debate that explanation if you like, but I have seen no attempts to even explain it other than through a Spirit-led, singular Church.
Since you can’t prove or define what Paul meant by “tradition”, you fail to show what you claim. Were these “traditions” later recorded in scripture? Were they doctrine related? Did they involve church discipline?
They were definitively all of the above. How do I know? Because of God’s infinite Truth. Because the Scriptures say that they do not contain the entirety of each of those things, and thus Christ provided another mechanism–in fact, that’s exactly the very simple, clear, and direct point of this verse. Since the Scriptures say they do not contain them all, they must be contained somewhere else. That is the
inescapable point and conclusion of this verse (among others).
Will you admit that?
If, then, all those things you mentioned are “contained” somewhere else, where are they contained? We have provided an explanation. You have not, and have not even attempted to refute our explanation. So, where do you think they are contained?
If you say “I don’t know,” are you not interested to find out? Does it not matter to find out?
If it does matter, then should we not consider possibilities? If so, well, we have given you a possibility. It is the only possibility on the table right now. We can discuss other possibilities (if they exist), but in order to be intellectually honest here, you must either come up with another possibility or demonstrate why the Catholic one doesn’t work.
And one more thing. If you don’t have another possibility and you only try to demonstrate that the Catholic one doesn’t work, then there is the suddenly astoundingly-relevant question: “Why does not one seem to know where that Truth went?” Which then begs, “Did Christ abandon his Church and break all his promises?”
Now let me tell you what I expect from you (since you like to tell us that you’ll only except your nonsensical list): either question my premises, or answer the questions that appear in my conclusions.
There is a third option–to dodge my argument–but it will only reinforce again your intellectual dishonesty, so I don’t encourage it.
