The Problem with Oral Traditions

[The Biblicist]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dare you to read Romans 16; 17-18 and then tell me that the doctrine wasn't intact then and not as you believe it to be refreshed by your mere man inventors until 1400 years after Jesus already established His Doctrine to His Church. [ Church and Doctrine , "Then " ] Regardless if you think that it wasn't the Catholic Church that Jesus made a promise to or not , Jesus still certainly promised that Church from any doctrinal error as found in Matt. 16 : 15-19. In this verse of Matt. 18: 15-18 you can almost hear the note of amazement in Jesus' voice when He said : , " If he refuses to listen even to the Church ,... " [ implying that for someone to ignore [ as in ignorance ] the Church - His One True Church - would be the height of stupidity and foolishness. Why do you ???

I never said the faith was not delivered by the apostles to the congregations.

Put your glasses back on and reread by last post. I only denied that the scriptures promise any perpetuity of Apostolic teaching by oral tradition.

 

[DHK]

There are some books on the subject. One of which I gave earlier. It is also common sense if one knows when man was created and communicated, and when writing came into being.

I might be mistaken, but it sounds like you have bitten of the poisonous tree of the evolutionist.

 

[lakeside]

I never said the faith was not delivered by the apostles to the congregations.

Put your glasses back on and reread by last post. I only denied that the scriptures promise any perpetuity of Apostolic teaching by oral tradition.

I never said the faith was not delivered by the apostles to the congregations. And that delivery was and still is part of the Apostolic Teaching Method. What is so difficult about accepting that ? After all , Jesus never wrote anything down [ except for a scribbling in sand] Regardless of your erroneous interpretation of Luke 10; 16, there is no doubt in that verse Jesus was given all authority to his apostles and for them to carry on the Teachings by making replacements ,
Here is another Apostolic command from Jesus "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven" Apostolic teaching was the normal way of evangelizing
You refuse to accept biblical proof that has a strong Catholic ring to it, so you simply deny/avoid or twist a verse into your man-made religion.You insult Jesus by being a denier of Scripture and the promise of Jesus. Typical of the protestering Protestant that you are.

 

[DHK]

You insult Jesus by being a denier of Scripture and the promise of Jesus. Typical of the protestering Protestant that you are.

1. The person that insults Jesus is the person that denies that Christ had to die for our sin (like the RCC). They do that in their teaching of Purgatory. Why did Christ have to die for our sins, if those in Purgatory have to be purged from them anyway? What blasphemy!

2. The person that insults Jesus is the person that denies that the blood of Christ is sufficient to take away our sin, or that Christ was powerful enough to atone for our sin. Since He is not (according to the RCC), we must baptize our people, because his blood is not good enough. We must help him get us there through baptism. That way we can say in the end that we had a part in this atoning sacrifice as well. What blasphemy!

3. The person that insults Jesus is the person that doesn't have enough faith in Jesus that He would take a newborn to heaven if that newborn happened to die. Thus the RCC created another place for such untimely deaths of babies called 'Limbo'. Insults from ungodly vain imaginations.

4. The person that insults Jesus is the person (RCC) that encourages its members to pray to Mary rather than Jesus, even though it is Jesus that is God, and not Mary. They don't recognize that the resurrection has not taken place and Mary is still in the grave. Praying to the dead is sin. The Bible calls it idolatry.

The people that insult Jesus are the RCC who do not know Jesus, but pretend that they do, and try to lead others down a road--the blind leading the blind--a road that only leads to Hell.

 

[gb93433]

I might be mistaken, but it sounds like you have bitten of the poisonous tree of the evolutionist.

How does what I wrote have anything to do with evolution? It has everything to do with history. I asked a simple that it seems you have avoided. I asked you to compare the time when man was created and writing came into being. There is a difference of several thousand years.

 

[lakeside]

1. The person that insults Jesus is the person that denies that Christ had to die for our sin (like the RCC). They do that in their teaching of Purgatory. Why did Christ have to die for our sins, if those in Purgatory have to be purged from them anyway? What blasphemy!

2. The person that insults Jesus is the person that denies that the blood of Christ is sufficient to take away our sin, or that Christ was powerful enough to atone for our sin. Since He is not (according to the RCC), we must baptize our people, because his blood is not good enough. We must help him get us there through baptism. That way we can say in the end that we had a part in this atoning sacrifice as well. What blasphemy!

3. The person that insults Jesus is the person that doesn't have enough faith in Jesus that He would take a newborn to heaven if that newborn happened to die. Thus the RCC created another place for such untimely deaths of babies called 'Limbo'. Insults from ungodly vain imaginations.

4. The person that insults Jesus is the person (RCC) that encourages its members to pray to Mary rather than Jesus, even though it is Jesus that is God, and not Mary. They don't recognize that the resurrection has not taken place and Mary is still in the grave. Praying to the dead is sin. The Bible calls it idolatry.




DHK, more foolishness from you, a Protestant, nowhere does Christ's Church teach the denial of the Blood of Christ on the Cross. Where is that found??


1, A purging for ones sins was always believed, even by Jesus and His Judaic religion while He was a member of His synagogue.Catholicism is a completion and contination of the completed Jewish Faith. Purgatory is explained in the seven Books" taken away from the Holy Bible " by early protesters of Christ's Apostolic Church. You Protestants do not accept the inspiration of 2 Maccabees , of course, but you must admit it refects the religious views of Jews shortly before NT times.

2, More foolishness from you, a Protestant, nowhere does Christ's Church teach the denial of the Blood of Christ on the Cross. Where is that found??

3, Limbo, it is a place where the just who died before the Redemtion were waiting for heaven to be opened to them [ 1 Peter 3: 19 ] . This place was neither heaven or hell. Jesus died for all mankind collectively, which includes young infants along with unborn infants who die in utero. Those children did indeed live (if only for a short time) and were indeed fully human (no matter how small and undeveloped). They could not commit personal sin, but they did inherit original sin and are part of the human race that needed reconciliation with God through the atonement on the cross that Jesus accomplished.

4, Many Protestants pray to their Bibles ,that is idolization [ i've seen it with my own eyes ,I'm not kidding ] When Catholics" pray" they are no more praying to Mary ,the Mother of God , than you who are asked by another to pray for them or somebody else, you DHK claim that you was once a Catholic, then surely you must still retain the Rosary Prayer and understand the words , in no way does that prayer signify praying to the perpetual Virgin Mary mother of our Lord/ God. Even the Holy Bible claims that the Father encourages 'PRAYERS " from a worthy person, if you're a honest person then you should admit that you can't think of anybody else that is more worthy than Mary, the mother of the Son of God .

 

[DHK]

How does what I wrote have anything to do with evolution? It has everything to do with history. I asked a simple that it seems you have avoided. I asked you to compare the time when man was created and writing came into being. There is a difference of several thousand years.

You said:

There are some books on the subject. One of which I gave earlier. It is also common sense if one knows when man was created and communicated, and when writing came into being.

Most of the world believes in evolution. To them man was "created" millions of years ago. To them, that is common sense.
To a second group, (theistic evolutionists), they also believe in the same time period--millions of years ago--common sense.

I can't read your mind. I am not an Old Age Creationist. That is not common sense, according to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Six thousand to 10,000 years ago is common sense.

Secondly, when Adam was created, he was created perfect, and created as a man, not an infant. In the same day that he was created all the animals passed before him and he gave names to each one of them. He was not, as the evolutionists would have us to believe, a "caveman," or of that mentality. No doubt if he had the intelligence to name all the animals God gave him the ability to speak a language, as we see him speaking with God, and the ability to write it down. I don't see any evidence that one should believe in evolutionary theories that writing took thousands of years since the creation of man to come into existence.
In fact, it is a widely accepted view, that when Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he had collected a number of documents that had been passed down from Adam through Seth, and the line of Seth to Noah, right up until Moses. Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, only had to edit what was before him. These were not illiterate people.

 

[lakeside]

DNK, you wrote the following: "In fact, it is a widely accepted view, that when Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he had collected a number of documents that had been passed down from Adam through Seth, and the line of Seth to Noah, right up until Moses. Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, only had to edit what was before him. These were not illiterate people."
__________________
Where is your proof that it was written material and not by Oral Teaching back then? Tell me , was it in a written language much like that of the ancient Babylonians or perhaps in the wedge-shaped cuneiform . Surely that written language would have made it on further down to us, if indeed such a language ever existed in the first place.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Can you prove that?

The only historical evidence or Bibical interpretations a devout Roman Catholic will accept is what Rome approves. Everything else is tarnished history and inaccurate interpretations.

Really? According to who.... Look, I can just as easily turn this around by stating that the only historical evidence or Bibical interpretations a devout [insert name here] will accept is what [insert name here] approves. Do you see just how rediculous this tactic is?

You left out scripture. How convenient...

Wouldn't make any difference if I had included it. However, just for your sake:

Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Mt 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Mt 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. {tempt: or, try, or, put to trial, or, proof}
Mt 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Mt 11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mt 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Mt 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
Mt 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
etc., etc., etc.,

You misunderstood my point and thus answered a question not asked. My meaning was that you left the RCC's use of scripture out of your critical list of things that the RCC uses.

No amount of evidence would be credible to a devout Roman Catholic. He would either just dismiss it or reinterpret it.

Hmmm... Since "No amount of evidence would be credible to a devout Roman Catholic..." you've decided that a defense of your arguments against them isn't worthy of proof. Then why are you even here? You do know that by employing such tactics you make yourself appear rather milquetoast.

Tertullian spoke of the "whole volume" of apostolic Scripture that proved Marcion had perverted the scriptures in his canon and said that no one could ADD or SUBTRACT to that "whole volume." He argued that this "WHOLE VOLUME" existed before 140 AD (time of marcion's canon) and none could ADD t it and he wrote this about 200 AD. All apostolic scriptures were written and among the churches prior to 100 A.D. There were translations prior to 150 A.D. The debate over the FEW books were not widespread but primarily in congregations going apostate and ultimately joining a STATE CHURCH union (beginning of Roman Catholicism) as there is no STATE CHURCH union in the New Testament apart from Revelation 17-18.

Few books? Apprently you are unaware of how many books didn't make it into the canon, yet were used in worship (some extensively). Here's a list for your edification.

Community Rule
The 'Zadokite' Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy's Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Latin
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES' CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA's to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP

It took three councils to agree on the NT canon we use today.

• 382 AD - Synod of Rome declared the canon of Scripture, 46 OT books, 27 NT books
• 393 AD - Council of Hippo declared the canon, which was the exact same list as Synod of Rome
• 397 AD - Council of Carthage ratified the canon decision made by those 2 councils

Ultmiately, it didn't matter what canon Tertullian had; nor did it matter what canon Marcion had. The decisions of those three councils codified the canon which was then ratified by the Pope and there's where its authority comes from. Either you must accept the authority of the Church to codify the NT canon, or you must reject the canon of the NT.

Believe whatever fairytales you wish. Historically, however, you are simply incorrect.

To be a "vicar "means to be a representative. Don't you, by your own Christian life, represent Christ? To be a Christian means to be a little Christ. Are you, buy your Christian life a little Christ? Ultimately, they have Apostolic authority handed down from Christ himself through Peter, etc.

What a joke! Look at your argument. Do you call yourself the Vicar of Christ? Do all Christians claim the title "Vicar" of Christ? As I recall the name "Christian" can be found in Scripture but where is any elder in Scripture ever called a "vicar"??????

Where is the phrase "Wednesday night prayer meeting" found in the Bible? Where is the phrase "Alter Call" used in the bible? Where is the word "Trinity" used in the bible? Where is the phrase "Sola Scriptura used in the bible?

Hey - it's your test not mine.

It certainly reveals the spirit directing the leadership of Catholicism by their selection of immoral and ungodly "vicars"! You can know them by their fruits.

- Rom. 17:18

I find it amazing how some people always fall back upon the intellectually vapid "...you can know them by their fruits..." argument as a convenient means to attack the entire Catholic Church.

I think that I have your position correct, Biblicist. Here's how your logic procedes:

a) The Catholic Church has some sinners in it - even priests and teachers (pedophiles, alcoholics, adulterers, etc.)
b) Since you will know "them" by "their" fruits and some of "their" fruits are the result of being sinners then
c) The Catholic Church has false teachers in it and is thus apostate.

Unfortunately, that's true of ALL churches. However, you conveniently leave out the other kinds of fruits that you can know "them" by - like:

SCHOOLS
The Church is the largest operator of private schools in the U.S., with over 2.6 million students enrolled in its 6,900 elementary schools and some 1,200 high schools, costing roughly $10 billion a year. Most of the elementary schools are attached to local parishes, while high schools are often run by a Catholic religious order, such as the Jesuits or Christian Brothers. Although tuition has been rising sharply, schools still receive large subsidies from the Church.

HEALTH CARE
The nonprofit health-care system includes 637 hospitals, accounting for 17% of all U.S. hospital admissions. The Church also runs 122 home health-care agencies and nearly 700 other service providers, including assisted living, adult day care, and senior housing. The hospitals alone have annual expenses of $65 billion and account for 5% of U.S. health-care spending.

CHARITIES
Catholic Charities USA consists of 1,400 agencies that run soup kitchens, temporary shelters, childcare, and refugee resettlement. In 1999, Catholic Charities had collective revenues of $2.34 billion. Most of that comes from state and local governments and from program fees. The Church accounts for only about 12% of income.

Data Sources:
Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University; National Catholic Educational Assn.; Catholic Health Assn.; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Catholic Charities USA

You see, the Catholic Church is the Biggest Christian Church on the planet; consequently, it is the world’s largest charitable organization and that's only a drop in the bucket when you look at it on a worldwide basis.

How 'bout those fruits there, Biblicist? Compare those fruits to some of the Protestant evangelicals that show up on TBN and the like. :thumbsup:

Ok. Biblicist! Congratulations - you managed to avoid answering any direct questions yet again. Therefore, I cannot take you seriously.

WM

 

[DHK]

1. The person that insults Jesus is the person that denies that Christ had to die for our sin (like the RCC). They do that in their teaching of Purgatory. Why did Christ have to die for our sins, if those in Purgatory have to be purged from them anyway? What blasphemy!

2. The person that insults Jesus is the person that denies that the blood of Christ is sufficient to take away our sin, or that Christ was powerful enough to atone for our sin. Since He is not (according to the RCC), we must baptize our people, because his blood is not good enough. We must help him get us there through baptism. That way we can say in the end that we had a part in this atoning sacrifice as well. What blasphemy!

3. The person that insults Jesus is the person that doesn't have enough faith in Jesus that He would take a newborn to heaven if that newborn happened to die. Thus the RCC created another place for such untimely deaths of babies called 'Limbo'. Insults from ungodly vain imaginations.

4. The person that insults Jesus is the person (RCC) that encourages its members to pray to Mary rather than Jesus, even though it is Jesus that is God, and not Mary. They don't recognize that the resurrection has not taken place and Mary is still in the grave. Praying to the dead is sin. The Bible calls it idolatry.

DHK, more foolishness from you, a Protestant, nowhere does Christ's Church teach the denial of the Blood of Christ on the Cross. Where is that found??

It is found in the very doctrines that the RCC teach, as I pointed out to you. When you teach Purgatory you deny the blood of Christ was sufficient, and likewise baptism, you deny the blood of Christ was sufficient to atone for your sins. Otherwise why would baptism be necessary for salvation. Jesus said, "It is finished." There is nothing more one can do. The work of salvation is complete. Baptism avails you nothing.

1, A purging for ones sins was always believed, even by Jesus and His Judaic religion while He was a member of His synagogue.

Please don't spout such blasphemy and foolishness. Document this trash if you have to post it. And do it from a reliable source--non-Catholic.
The only person that "purge" or wash away our sins is Christ, specifically the blood of Christ.

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29)

Catholicism is a completion and contination of the completed Jewish Faith.

Glad to see that you are now admitting that it is not Christian. Judaism is not Christian either. Those that are in Judaism, like those in the RCC, must be saved. They must become Christians. Your paganism won't do it.

Purgatory is explained in the seven Books" taken away from the Holy Bible " by early protesters of Christ's Apostolic Church. You Protestants do not accept the inspiration of 2 Maccabees , of course, but you must admit it refects the religious views of Jews shortly before NT times.

Neither Jews nor non-Catholics ever accepted these books.
They have been non-canonical from the day that they were written.
They were put into the OT Canon, and yet the Jewish Scripture was completed by 450 B.C. and recognized as such. No Jew would recognize any book as Scripture if it was earlier than 400 B.C. The oldest book of the Apocrypha is 250 B.C. and some of them were written after Christ was born!! And they are supposed to be in the OT??

2, More foolishness from you, a Protestant, nowhere does Christ's Church teach the denial of the Blood of Christ on the Cross. Where is that found??

If Baptism is necessary for salvation, then Christ's blood is not sufficient to take away sin. It is just that plain and simple.

3, Limbo, it is a place where the just who died before the Redemtion were waiting for heaven to be opened to them [ 1 Peter 3: 19 ] .

The Bible teaches no such thing. Not even the concept is found in the Bible.
1Pet.3:19--You have got to be kidding, right? You really are not serious. You are. This shows the depths the RCC will go to take Scripture out of context, to distort it. It also shows the truth of what Peter said here:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

But here is the verse you referenced (for infants that died--going to limbo)
19 "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." (1 Peter 3:19-20)
--This is speaking of the fallen angels in Genesis 6 that took upon bodies and married with women, the result was "giants in the land," and the wickedness so great, "that God's Spirit would no longer strive with man's spirit," and he destroyed the world with a flood. These are those demonic spirits that are referred to in 1Pet.3:16.
They weren't sent to any limbo--a place for infants! How ludicrous!

This place was neither heaven or hell. Jesus died for all mankind collectively, which includes young infants along with unborn infants who die in utero. Those children did indeed live (if only for a short time) and were indeed fully human (no matter how small and undeveloped). They could not commit personal sin, but they did inherit original sin and are part of the human race that needed reconciliation with God through the atonement on the cross that Jesus accomplished.

Thus, you show that you don't have an understanding of the grace, love and mercy of God, and would rather put your faith in the inventions of wicked men, then in the Bible. How sad!

4, Many Protestants pray to their Bibles ,that is idolization [ i've seen it with my own eyes ,I'm not kidding ]

I don't know what you have seen; but I have not seen that. And it would be condemned.

When Catholics" pray" they are no more praying to Mary ,the Mother of God , than you who are asked by another to pray for them or somebody else,

That is a lie of the devil and you know it. Don't be deceived.
You are praying straight to Mary, when praying to Mary. You are not praying for someone else but TO Mary herself. Don't lie. Don't be so deceived.

you DHK claim that you was once a Catholic, then surely you must still retain the Rosary Prayer and understand the words , in no way does that prayer signify praying to the perpetual Virgin Mary mother of our Lord/ God.

"Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death, Amen."
It is a prayer TO Mary, PETITIONING MARY HERSELF to pray FOR US sinners right now and also at the hour of our death.
It is not like asking someone else to pray FOR us. They prayer is TO her.
That is worship of Mary, and it takes away worship from God, and therefore is idolatry. Worship belongs to God alone. The worship of any other than God alone is idolatry.

Even the Holy Bible claims that the Father encourages 'PRAYERS " from a worthy person,

FROM not TO! There is a big difference. I don't pray to anyone but God.
Read Esther. Mordecai stood outside the gate. As Haman went in and out all bowed down before him and revered him. All, but Mordecai. He would only bow down to God. Reverence belongs to God alone. Worship belongs to God alone. For that reason, Haman made gallows to hang Mordecai, for he wouldn't give him the reverence that he thought was due him. You should read the story.

if you're a honest person then you should admit that you can't think of anybody else that is more worthy than Mary, the mother of the Son of God .

Mary was a dirty rotten sinner like the rest of us. She had committed crimes against God that needed to be atoned for. Therefore, at the time of her purification, she brought a sin offering for she knew she was a sinner.

Until the time that every sinner realizes that they are "dirty rotten sinners," like Mary they cannot attain salvation and have eternal life. You must realize you are lost before you can be saved.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You said:

Most of the world believes in evolution. To them man was "created" millions of years ago. To them, that is common sense.
To a second group, (theistic evolutionists), they also believe in the same time period--millions of years ago--common sense.

I can't read your mind. I am not an Old Age Creationist. That is not common sense, according to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Six thousand to 10,000 years ago is common sense.

Secondly, when Adam was created, he was created perfect, and created as a man, not an infant. In the same day that he was created all the animals passed before him and he gave names to each one of them. He was not, as the evolutionists would have us to believe, a "caveman," or of that mentality. No doubt if he had the intelligence to name all the animals God gave him the ability to speak a language, as we see him speaking with God, and the ability to write it down. I don't see any evidence that one should believe in evolutionary theories that writing took thousands of years since the creation of man to come into existence.
In fact, it is a widely accepted view, that when Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he had collected a number of documents that had been passed down from Adam through Seth, and the line of Seth to Noah, right up until Moses. Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, only had to edit what was before him. These were not illiterate people.

I seem to recall that the early people of those times believed that the heavens were supported by giant pillars and the like. Hmmm...

WM

 

[DHK]

I seem to recall that the early people of those times believed that the heavens were supported by giant pillars and the like. Hmmm...

WM

Please provide evidence.
What early people? Adam? Noah? Jesus? Paul?

 

[WestminsterMan]

Please provide evidence.
What early people? Adam? Noah? Jesus? Paul?

Cosmology:
The cosmology of the ancient Semites can be determined from a number of sources, most notably by comparison with the Babylonian and Sumerian myths (see the Sumerian Mythology FAQ). In addition, Ugaritic literature throws much light on the mythology of the old Canaanites.

Among the Semitic ancients, the notion of a geocentric universe was common. Coupled with this was the idea of a the world as a house or dwelling. The earth was the floor - sometimes thought to be square, but mostly considered to be circular. Heaven was the roof of the world, and viewed either as a tent stretched out over the earth, or as a ceiling supported by pillars or mountains. The earth was considered to have a fixed, immovable foundation, and was usually viewed as being supported in the sea, again usually on pillars. Below the earth was the abode of the dead, a concept that later developed into the Hell of the New Testament. Above the sky was the Heaven - the abode of the gods. Some ancient myths also held that there was a storehouse of water just above the sky. This water was occasionally let through the sky by windows or doors, thus causing rain on the earth.

Of course, this notion was not shared by all ancient peoples. Erastosthenes of Alexandria, for example, argued that the earth was spherical as early as 300 BC, and was even able to make a surprisingly accurate estimate of its diameter. Just fifty years later, Aristarchus of Samos developed a heliocentric theory of astronomy.

Unfortunately, these ideas were not widely disseminated outside of the Mediterranean, and they soon fell into disuse, being replaced by the Ptolemaic geocentric theory. Certainly, the ancient Semites had no use for such theories, and consequently the Bible reflects a geocentric universe and a flat earth.

There are several Biblical references to a flat earth, both in the Old and the New Testament. There are, obviously, no explicit statements to that effect, quite simply because it was the prevailing paradigm, and was simply assumed by the various writers.

The Corners of the Earth:
The most common reference is to the 'four corners' of the earth. For example, Isaiah 11:12 reads:

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Whether one assumes that the author meant literal corners, or the four cardinal directions, this statement still appears to presuppose a flat earth. Of course, it is possible that the phrase is employed in a symbolic sense, as we, for example, refer to the sun 'setting' and 'rising', even when we know better. However, it must be borne in might that this allegory did not arise ex nihilo - it is, in fact, a reflection of an earlier, prescientific point of view, during which our language developed.

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/science.shtml

There are many other sources.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Really? According to who.... Look, I can just as easily turn this around by stating that the only historical evidence or Bibical interpretations a devout [insert name here] will accept is what [insert name here] approves. Do you see just how rediculous this tactic is?

It is no tactic. It is just the way it is and I have seen it over and over again verified.

You misunderstood my point and thus answered a question not asked. My meaning was that you left the RCC's use of scripture out of your critical list of things that the RCC uses.

Luke 10:16; 2 Thes. 2;15, etc.

Hmmm... Since "No amount of evidence would be credible to a devout Roman Catholic..." you've decided that a defense of your arguments against them isn't worthy of proof. Then why are you even here? You do know that by employing such tactics you make yourself appear rather milquetoast.

Here is the problem. If a certain Biblical interpretation is provided that opposes the RC positoin and contextual evidence is provided to solidify that interpretation, then the RC response is to shift from the Biblical context to the historical context of interpretation provided in the ECF in order to get out of the Biblical problem. I have gone through this circular route over and over.

For example, 2 Peter 1:15-19; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; etc. By immediate context it can be clearly proven that scripture alone is all sufficient for faith and practice. I have demonstrated this several times simply from the immediate context of these scriptures along with other related Biblical context and FINAL response (after being shown that one response after another is unsubstantiated by scripture) is to run to EFC and/or other arguments about Papal succession, etc.

Few books? Apprently you are unaware of how many books didn't make it into the canon, yet were used in worship (some extensively). Here's a list for your edification.

Community Rule
The 'Zadokite' Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy's Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Latin
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES' CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA's to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP

It took three councils to agree on the NT canon we use today.

• 382 AD - Synod of Rome declared the canon of Scripture, 46 OT books, 27 NT books
• 393 AD - Council of Hippo declared the canon, which was the exact same list as Synod of Rome
• 397 AD - Council of Carthage ratified the canon decision made by those 2 councils

Ultmiately, it didn't matter what canon Tertullian had; nor did it matter what canon Marcion had. The decisions of those three councils codified the canon which was then ratified by the Pope and there's where its authority comes from. Either you must accept the authority of the Church to codify the NT canon, or you must reject the canon of the NT.

Believe whatever fairytales you wish. Historically, however, you are simply incorrect.

No so! First there is no evidence that the above listed books were being regarded as "scripture" in first or early second century apostolic congregations AND only later among what I would consider Apostate congregations gradually forming the basis for the beginning of the Roman Catholic denomination.

Don't mistake of using such materials for DEVOTIONAL reading as recognition to be "scripture." PROVE THEY WERE REGARDED AS SCRIPTURE prior to 150 A.D.!!!!

It does matter what Tertullian said was the "WHOLE VOLUME" because he didn't just say it could not be subtracted from but it could not be ADDED unto.

Where is the phrase "Wednesday night prayer meeting" found in the Bible? Where is the phrase "Alter Call" used in the bible?

All you are doing is the common jump and shift routine. Your previous argument was shown to be baseless so you just jump and shift to another equally baseless argument. I personally do not know any articles of faith among Baptists that define "Wednesday night prayer meeting" as an article of faith or "Altar call." Hence, you are mixing apples with oranges.

Where is the word "Trinity" used in the bible? Where is the phrase "Sola Scriptura used in the bible?

The doctrine for both is clearly taught throughout the scriptures - permeating the scriptures but not so with the Roman Catholic "vicar of Christ" dogma. Indeed it is condemned by Peter himself and the whole imagined foundation upon which it is based in Matthew 16:18-19 is condemned by both Christ and Peter.

Hey - it's your test not mine.

I find it amazing how some people always fall back upon the intellectually vapid "...you can know them by their fruits..." argument as a convenient means to attack the entire Catholic Church.

Certainly, since it is the REPEATED selection by the church of its most important leadership in its highest offices.

I think it is amazing you respond by a numbers and size response. Especially since the prediction by Christ that apostasy is the growing factor in the kingdom after the apostolic age (Mt. 13). Satan has a huge religius empire that even makes the RC little in size but definitly inclusive in his kingdom.

Ok. Biblicist! Congratulations - you managed to avoid answering any direct questions yet again. Therefore, I cannot take you seriously.

WM

Nobody asked you to! I don't recall sending out requests?

 

[WestminsterMan]

Here is the problem. If a certain Biblical interpretation is provided that opposes the RC positoin and contextual evidence is provided to solidify that interpretation, then the RC response is to shift from the Biblical context to the historical context of interpretation provided in the ECF in order to get out of the Biblical problem. I have gone through this circular route over and over.

Its circular for you because those whom you are debating don't hold to Sola Scriptura. Why would someone who doesn't believe that scripture is the only authority play by rules that require that belief. That's your problem not mine.

For example, 2 Peter 1:15-19; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; etc. By immediate context it can be clearly proven that scripture alone is all sufficient for faith and practice. I have demonstrated this several times simply from the immediate context of these scriptures along with other related Biblical context and FINAL response (after being shown that one response after another is unsubstantiated by scripture) is to run to EFC and/or other arguments about Papal succession, etc.

No need for any such gymnastics.

Let’s take an analytical look at 2 Tim. 3:16
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Taking the verse apart we see the following:

1.Scripture is inspired by God Amen! The CC agrees with this.

2. Scripture is profitable (yielding advantageous results) for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Again, Amen!

Additionally, since scripture is inspired, then by nature, it is authoritative. However, nowhere does that verse state (or any other verse for that matter) that scripture is the ONLY authority. Further, nowhere in scripture do we find the words scripture alone. If scripture were the only authority, then one would expect to find it explicitly stated in scripture - I mean since scripture is inspired and all. It isn’t, therefore, Sola Scriptura (ironically by your own standard) is not scriptural.

Hmmm...

No so! First there is no evidence that the above listed books were being regarded as "scripture" in first or early second century apostolic congregations AND only later among what I would consider Apostate congregations gradually forming the basis for the beginning of the Roman Catholic denomination.

Yes so! And here's the operative phrase... what YOU consider. I think history bears out my point.

Don't mistake of using such materials for DEVOTIONAL reading as recognition to be "scripture." PROVE THEY WERE REGARDED AS SCRIPTURE prior to 150 A.D.!!!!

PROVE THAT THEY WERE ONLY BEING USED AS DEVOTIONAL MATERIAL prior to 150 A.D.!!! Back attcha' there doc - er, I mean - The Biblicist!

See - I can shout in bold dark red text too!

It does matter what Tertullian said was the "WHOLE VOLUME" because he didn't just say it could not be subtracted from but it could not be ADDED unto.

Oh I see. So when the RC's, as you charged above "...run to EFC", you complain. Yet, when you need extra-biblical sources, you do that very thing.

Hmmm...I think most readers can recognize this for what it is.

All you are doing is the common jump and shift routine. Your previous argument was shown to be baseless so you just jump and shift to another equally baseless argument. I personally do not know any articles of faith among Baptists that define "Wednesday night prayer meeting" as an article of faith or "Altar call." Hence, you are mixing apples with oranges.

I simply applied your own tactic back onto your own flavor of Protestantism. Stinks doesn't it?

The doctrine for both is clearly taught throughout the scriptures - permeating the scriptures but not so with the Roman Catholic "vicar of Christ" dogma. Indeed it is condemned by Peter himself and the whole imagined foundation upon which it is based in Matthew 16:18-19 is condemned by both Christ and Peter.

Hey - it's your test not mine.

Copy cat!

I think it is amazing you respond by a numbers and size response. Especially since the prediction by Christ that apostasy is the growing factor in the kingdom after the apostolic age (Mt. 13).

What is truely amazing is your refusal to admit the proof of good fruit from the RCC even when presented with the statistics.

Satan has a huge religius empire that even makes the RC little in size but definitly inclusive in his kingdom

I cannot imagine any circumstance in which a Catholic would care how you view the RCC.

Nobody asked you to! I don't recall sending out requests?

Well, unfortunately for you, my declaration doesn't require your approval.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Its circular for you because those whom you are debating don't hold to Sola Scriptura. Why would someone who doesn't believe that scripture is the only authority play by rules that require that belief. That's your problem not mine.

That is a confession that when Biblical context will not support RC interpretation of scriptures, then EFC is used to support RC interpretations not by harmonization with Biblical context but by PITTING EFC interpretations against Biblical context.

No need for any such gymnastics.

Let’s take an analytical look at 2 Tim. 3:16
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Taking the verse apart we see the following:

1.Scripture is inspired by God Amen! The CC agrees with this.

2. Scripture is profitable (yielding advantageous results) for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Again, Amen!

Additionally, since scripture is inspired, then by nature, it is authoritative. However, nowhere does that verse state (or any other verse for that matter) that scripture is the ONLY authority.

Nice try but insufficient for several reasons. This text must be taken into consideration with the immediate scriptures preceding and following;

1. Verses 14-15 demonstrate that as a child "scriptures" were used for his training without mention of ORAL TRADITIONS!. No oral tradition used by Paul in training Timothy but rather inspired prophetic oral teaching directly by Paul. No ORAL TRADITIONS but rather DIRECT inspired prophetic teaching.

2. The scriptues alone are sufficient WITHOUT ORAL TRADITIONS

a. Only scripture is provided as "profitable" for doctrine, instruction, correction, reproof - NO INCLUSION OF ORAL TRADITION.

b. Four terms WHEN CONSIDERED TOGETHER IN SUCH A CONTEXT demand it is completely sufficient

- "inspired"
- "perfect"
- "throughly furnished"
- "all good works"

Oh I see. So when the RC's, as you charged above "...run to EFC", you complain. Yet, when you need extra-biblical sources, you do that very thing.

Since when? What doctrine do I embrace that I need "extra-biblical sources"??????

What is truely amazing is your refusal to admit the proof of good fruit from the RCC even when presented with the statistics.

Good from whose perspective?

 

[lakeside]

The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
Both OT and NT communities [ Jewish & Christian converts ] held to two aspects of one revelation: Scripture and tradition. Neither had the truncated concept of your Protestant" sola Scriptura ".
Both Israel and the Church had a recognized teaching authority; both believed God's people were governed by a hierarchy.
Both had a hierarchy before they had a "book" , and both "books "[ Old and New Testaments ] were recognized and collacted into authoitative canons through the hands of the respective hierarchies.
Both viewed the authorative teaching office as being one of succession, in other words , the offices would always be filled, never left vacant.
"Moses' seat" continued with successors through two thousand years, acknomledged by the Lord Jesus himself, and now the "chair of Peter" is approaching its two thousandth year, and the office has been filled by 264 Popes.

 

[The Biblicist]

The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
Both OT and NT communities [ Jewish & Christian converts ] held to two aspects of one revelation: Scripture and tradition. Neither had the truncated concept of your Protestant" sola Scriptura ".
Both Israel and the Church had a recognized teaching authority; both believed God's people were governed by a hierarchy.
Both had a hierarchy before they had a "book" , and both "books "[ Old and New Testaments ] were recognized and collacted into authoitative canons through the hands of the respective hierarchies.
Both viewed the authorative teaching office as being one of succession, in other words , the offices would always be filled, never left vacant.
"Moses' seat" continued with successors through two thousand years, acknomledged by the Lord Jesus himself, and now the "chair of Peter" is approaching its two thousandth year, and the office has been filled by 264 Popes.

Simply asserting it does not make something false to be true. Scriptures ALONE are declard by the scriptures to be the sufficient and final authority for faith and practice - Isa. 8:20 and 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

Apostolic oral teaching is directly addressed by Scriptures and by none other than Peter and declared to be LESS STABLE than scriptures - 2 Pet. 1:15-19.

 

[lakeside]

Simply asserting it does not make something false to be true. Scriptures ALONE are declard by the scriptures to be the sufficient and final authority for faith and practice - Isa. 8:20 and 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

Apostolic oral teaching is directly addressed by Scriptures and by none other than Peter and declared to be LESS STABLE than scriptures - 2 Pet. 1:15-19.

Biblicist again you twist it, no where does the Bible lay claim to be the sole rule of faith. Paul wrote, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). And he instructed, "Hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

These oral teachings and traditions have been handed down and entrusted to the Church, and they remain as much a part of the full Christian faith as the Bible. To ignore them is no less a tragedy than to ignore the Bible, Read the correct explanation of the following;before and after 2nd Peter 1:15-19


2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist again you twist it, no where does the Bible lay claim to be the sole rule of faith.

Yes it most certainly does - Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17

Scripture is given by inspiration for doctrine, instruction, correction, reproof and is COMPLETE SUFFICENT WITHOUT ORAL TRADITIONS:

1. "perfect" - COMPLETE/FULL not almost complete
2. "throughly furnished" - NOT PARTIALLY FURNISHED
3. "all good works" - SUFFICIENT FOR "ALL" not merely some

Paul wrote, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). And he instructed, "Hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Nothing in these verses that teach divine preservation of oral apostolic teaching from generation to generation or that such would be divinely preserved through their disciples.

These oral teachings and traditions have been handed down and entrusted to the Church, and they remain as much a part of the full Christian faith as the Bible. To ignore them is no less a tragedy than to ignore the Bible, Read the correct explanation of the following;before and after 2nd Peter 1:15-19


2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

You and Rome have no clue what 2 Peter 1:20 means! Peter is referring to the writers of scriptures NOT THE READERS of scripture. Read the next verse! He is simply saying that the scriptures do not represent the PRIVATE VIEWS of the writers but rather the scriptures represent GOD'S VIEW and God worked in the writers so they present God's view not their own personal opinions.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

We don't have all the writings of the prophets but we have ALL that God inspired as "scriptures." The term "ignornant" implies no such thing. The book of Hebrews is what Peter most likely is referrring to and it is WRITTEN scripture.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction.[/QUOTE]

Your interpetation of 2 Pet. 1:20 proves that beyond doubt and with all of Roman Catholic oral traditions to help you.