Would you stay? 3

[Davyboy]

Part 2 was in the process of being closed.


My point was that Mt 23:1-3 was oral and extrabiblical tradition in the NT.

Matthew 2:23: “and he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘ He shall be called a Nazarene.’”

Mt 23:1-3 “Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice,’’

The reference in Matt 2:23 that he shall be called a Nazarene cannot be found in the OT yet it was passed down by the prophets. Thus, a prophecy which is considered to be God’s Word was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture. This is true for Matthew 23:2-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the OT. It is found in the originally oral Mishna, where a sort of teaching succession from Moses on down is taught.

Other extrabiblical and oral traditions acknowledges by the NT writers include

1 Cor 10:4.-a rock which “followed” the Jews. The OT says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related verses about Moses strinking the rock to produce water(Ex 17:1-7; Num 20:2-13) Rabbinic tradition however does.

1 Peter 3:19 Christ’s journey to Sheol/Hades (he went and preached to the spirits in prison) draws directly from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch. Jude 14-15 directly quotes form 1 Enoch 1:9 and even states that Enoch prophesied.

Jude 9 the dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan over Moses’ body, It cannot be paralleled in the OT and appears to be recounting of an oral Jewish tradition

2 Timothy 3:8 the reference to Jannes and Jambres cannot be found in the related OT passages

James 5:17 mentions a lack of rain for three years which is likewise absent from the relevant OT passage in 1 Kings 17.

Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition (in so doing, raising some of it literally to the level of written revelation). Jesus attacked corrupt traditions only, not traditions per se, and not all oral traditions. According to a strict sola scriptura viewpoint, this would be inadmissible it seems to me.

 

[Yeshua1]

Part 2 was in the process of being closed.


My point was that Mt 23:1-3 was oral and extrabiblical tradition in the NT.

Matthew 2:23: “and he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘ He shall be called a Nazarene.’”

Mt 23:1-3 “Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice,’’

The reference in Matt 2:23 that he shall be called a Nazarene cannot be found in the OT yet it was passed down by the prophets. Thus, a prophecy which is considered to be God’s Word was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture. This is true for Matthew 23:2-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the OT. It is found in the originally oral Mishna, where a sort of teaching succession from Moses on down is taught.

Other extrabiblical and oral traditions acknowledges by the NT writers include

1 Cor 10:4.-a rock which “followed” the Jews. The OT says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related verses about Moses strinking the rock to produce water(Ex 17:1-7; Num 20:2-13) Rabbinic tradition however does.

1 Peter 3:19 Christ’s journey to Sheol/Hades (he went and preached to the spirits in prison) draws directly from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch. Jude 14-15 directly quotes form 1 Enoch 1:9 and even states that Enoch prophesied.

Jude 9 the dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan over Moses’ body, It cannot be paralleled in the OT and appears to be recounting of an oral Jewish tradition

2 Timothy 3:8 the reference to Jannes and Jambres cannot be found in the related OT passages

James 5:17 mentions a lack of rain for three years which is likewise absent from the relevant OT passage in 1 Kings 17.

Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition (in so doing, raising some of it literally to the level of written revelation). Jesus attacked corrupt traditions only, not traditions per se, and not all oral traditions. According to a strict sola scriptura viewpoint, this would be inadmissible it seems to me.

Moses no doubt also had some form of oral traditions received for Genesis,but the problem for RCC is that the tradition oral and wriiten received/passed down was also inspired by God, and that ceased when John died!

 

[JonShaff]

Part 2 was in the process of being closed.


My point was that Mt 23:1-3 was oral and extrabiblical tradition in the NT.

Matthew 2:23: “and he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘ He shall be called a Nazarene.’”

Mt 23:1-3 “Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice,’’

The reference in Matt 2:23 that he shall be called a Nazarene cannot be found in the OT yet it was passed down by the prophets. Thus, a prophecy which is considered to be God’s Word was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture. This is true for Matthew 23:2-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the OT. It is found in the originally oral Mishna, where a sort of teaching succession from Moses on down is taught.

Other extrabiblical and oral traditions acknowledges by the NT writers include

1 Cor 10:4.-a rock which “followed” the Jews. The OT says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related verses about Moses strinking the rock to produce water(Ex 17:1-7; Num 20:2-13) Rabbinic tradition however does.

1 Peter 3:19 Christ’s journey to Sheol/Hades (he went and preached to the spirits in prison) draws directly from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch. Jude 14-15 directly quotes form 1 Enoch 1:9 and even states that Enoch prophesied.

Jude 9 the dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan over Moses’ body, It cannot be paralleled in the OT and appears to be recounting of an oral Jewish tradition

2 Timothy 3:8 the reference to Jannes and Jambres cannot be found in the related OT passages

James 5:17 mentions a lack of rain for three years which is likewise absent from the relevant OT passage in 1 Kings 17.

Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition (in so doing, raising some of it literally to the level of written revelation). Jesus attacked corrupt traditions only, not traditions per se, and not all oral traditions. According to a strict sola scriptura viewpoint, this would be inadmissible it seems to me.

They Sat it Moses' seat meaning they should have been expounding from the Written Word of God--the Torah. No matter what angle you want to spin this, it all goes back to the Scriptures have the authority.

 

[Davyboy]

they should have.

They should have” but they WERE NOT using only written word. Simply ignoring the facts.

I guess no one knew what to do or how to make a rebuttal against the oral and extrabiblical traditions of the New Testament (verse that don’t have any OT scriptural evidence to them.) Ignoring the Facts.

Wow the Protestant view of the using the “Bible Alone” stance is devolving. It went from a strict view of you must use the written words only, now steaver and Yeshua1 are basically saying with that with the death of the last Apostle the authority’s active role within the Church (Apostles) also died. You know by insisting on the authority of the Apostles (early Church) gives credence to the Catholic teaching.

By the verses I provided back in part 2 of this thread, the Oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. By preaching by oral instruction (Rom 10:17), the Church would always be the living teacher. Nowhere in the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only or that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

So Jesus invested the Apostles (Early Church) with His authority but the Bible says nowhere that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. It’s actually the opposite, the Bible is quite clear that in 1) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and 2) the Apostles clearly chose successors who in turn possessed the same authority to “bind and loose.” This is shown in Act 1:14-26 election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas and in 2 Tim 1:6 and Titus 1:5 where St Paul is passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus.

It was clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time (1 Pet 1:25) Take note the word has been “preached” (ORALLY). This would endure. It would not be ousted, replaced or succeeded by a written record and it still would continue to have its own authority.

2 Tim 2:2 Paul says “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (Remember no canon of the Bible until about 400 AD and the printing press till about 1400AD) This was the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down unbroken from the apostles to our own day. So Paul told Timothy to pass on the oral teaching (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give those traditions to men who would be able to teach others, so continuing the chain. Also Paul gave this not long before his death (2 Tim 4:6-8) as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

So Paul shows us what tradition is in 1 Cor 15:3, 11. “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” Then the Apostle praises those who follow that Tradition in 1 Cor 11:2: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you”. Since the very beginning of the Church, Christians have “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was an actual NT.

There is a lot of information here so making a 1 or 2 long statement is not considered a rebuttal.

So far we have nowhere in the Bible that says:

Nowhere says: the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only.

Nowhere says: The idea that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

Nowhere says: that the authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle.

Nowhere says: The “Bible Alone” as the “Ultimate and only Authority ”

Nowhere says: the Bible commands that any or every doctrine be proved from the Bible Alone.

 

[JonShaff]

Nowhere says: the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only.

Nowhere says: The idea that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

Nowhere says: that the authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle.

Nowhere says: The “Bible Alone” as the “Ultimate and only Authority ”

Nowhere says: the Bible commands that any or every doctrine be proved from the Bible Alone.

What you are promoting is this....

1. you are saying is that "God's Word can be found outside of Scripture"

2. The Church has authority in and of herself (a special sect at that)

3. Multiple sources of authority outside of the word of God

4. There is Doctrine that can be found outside of the Bible

Sir, Please heed the warning. You are building on sand as your foundation! Please, trust me!!! I do love you and care for you! I was once where you were. There is no hope for a person who has aligned themselves against God's Word as you are doing.

 

[Walter]

What you are promoting is this....

1. you are saying is that "God's Word can be found outside of Scripture"

2. The Church has authority in and of herself (a special sect at that)

3. Multiple sources of authority outside of the word of God

4. There is Doctrine that can be found outside of the Bible

Sir, Please heed the warning. You are building on sand as your foundation! Please, trust me!!! I do love you and care for you! I was once where you were. There is no hope for a person who has aligned themselves against God's Word as you are doing.

So you are saying he is not a Christian in violation of the boards explicit rule against doing so.

 

[Adonia]

There is no hope for a person who has aligned themselves against God's Word as you are doing.

I see, so you are now the arbiter of who is and who isn't aligned with God's word? How about those Eastern Orthodox folks, and they in line with God's word? Lutherans? Episcopalians? Just who else do you consider not in line?

No, all you have done is jettison one line of Christian thought, belief, and practice for the one in which you now follow. You know, when your Pastor stands up and gives a sermon about a particular scripture he has really taken upon himself the role of being the "final authority" on it. He is giving you his take on what he thinks it means- nothing more and nothing less. If he isn't the final authority of the word, then why are you listening to him? Why, you could just go to the "final authority" i.e.the Scriptures and figure things out yourself, no?

 

[Yeshua1]

They should have” but they WERE NOT using only written word. Simply ignoring the facts.

I guess no one knew what to do or how to make a rebuttal against the oral and extrabiblical traditions of the New Testament (verse that don’t have any OT scriptural evidence to them.) Ignoring the Facts.

Wow the Protestant view of the using the “Bible Alone” stance is devolving. It went from a strict view of you must use the written words only, now steaver and Yeshua1 are basically saying with that with the death of the last Apostle the authority’s active role within the Church (Apostles) also died. You know by insisting on the authority of the Apostles (early Church) gives credence to the Catholic teaching.

By the verses I provided back in part 2 of this thread, the Oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. By preaching by oral instruction (Rom 10:17), the Church would always be the living teacher. Nowhere in the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only or that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

So Jesus invested the Apostles (Early Church) with His authority but the Bible says nowhere that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. It’s actually the opposite, the Bible is quite clear that in 1) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and 2) the Apostles clearly chose successors who in turn possessed the same authority to “bind and loose.” This is shown in Act 1:14-26 election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas and in 2 Tim 1:6 and Titus 1:5 where St Paul is passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus.

It was clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time (1 Pet 1:25) Take note the word has been “preached” (ORALLY). This would endure. It would not be ousted, replaced or succeeded by a written record and it still would continue to have its own authority.

2 Tim 2:2 Paul says “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (Remember no canon of the Bible until about 400 AD and the printing press till about 1400AD) This was the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down unbroken from the apostles to our own day. So Paul told Timothy to pass on the oral teaching (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give those traditions to men who would be able to teach others, so continuing the chain. Also Paul gave this not long before his death (2 Tim 4:6-8) as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

So Paul shows us what tradition is in 1 Cor 15:3, 11. “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” Then the Apostle praises those who follow that Tradition in 1 Cor 11:2: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you”. Since the very beginning of the Church, Christians have “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was an actual NT.

There is a lot of information here so making a 1 or 2 long statement is not considered a rebuttal.

So far we have nowhere in the Bible that says:

Nowhere says: the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only.

Nowhere says: The idea that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

Nowhere says: that the authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle.

Nowhere says: The “Bible Alone” as the “Ultimate and only Authority ”

Nowhere says: the Bible commands that any or every doctrine be proved from the Bible Alone.

Jesus and the Apostles had the authority to use extar sources/traditions, as when Jude quoted book of Enoch under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but Rome does not have that authority to so same!

 

[Yeshua1]

What you are promoting is this....

1. you are saying is that "God's Word can be found outside of Scripture"

2. The Church has authority in and of herself (a special sect at that)

3. Multiple sources of authority outside of the word of God

4. There is Doctrine that can be found outside of the Bible

Sir, Please heed the warning. You are building on sand as your foundation! Please, trust me!!! I do love you and care for you! I was once where you were. There is no hope for a person who has aligned themselves against God's Word as you are doing.

Their reasoning sounds a lot like what the Mormons and Jw state, as they also see themselves as true church, with authority from god to"rightly divide the scriptures"

 

[utilyan]

What you are promoting is this....

1. you are saying is that "God's Word can be found outside of Scripture"

2. The Church has authority in and of herself (a special sect at that)

3. Multiple sources of authority outside of the word of God

4. There is Doctrine that can be found outside of the Bible

Sir, Please heed the warning. You are building on sand as your foundation! Please, trust me!!! I do love you and care for you! I was once where you were. There is no hope for a person who has aligned themselves against God's Word as you are doing.

Show us the table of contents that has been inspired by the holy spirit.


The only sand here is a unbiblical doctrine you can't even cite from scripture.

Since you have to add fake rules you deny the sufficiency of scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Show us the table of contents that has been inspired by the holy spirit.


The only sand here is a unbiblical doctrine you can't even cite from scripture.

Since you have to add fake rules you deny the sufficiency of scripture.

its in the beginning of ost Bibles, listed under books of the Bible!

 

[JonShaff]

I see...
Why, you could just go to the "final authority" i.e.the Scriptures and figure things out yourself, no?

Ahhh...now you're tracking me....

1 Corinthians 14:31 (NET) For you can all prophesy one after another, so all can learn and be encouraged.

1 Corinthians 14:31

Yes, if we are indwelt by the Spirit of Truth then He will bear witness to the truth. In the true church, no one person has a monopoly on the truth. We all study together and learn. There are teachers gifted to the church to help others learn to feed themselves...for the purpose of participating in the ministry of the Word.

 

[utilyan]

its in the beginning of ost Bibles, listed under books of the Bible!

Those are added in by the publisher. They don't have an apostle for an author.

And they are not inspired by the holy spirit.

 

[Walter]

its in the beginning of ost Bibles, listed under books of the Bible!

So you're justified in taking the Catholic Church’s word on the Bible’s authenticity (most of it at least) and still hating our Church as much as you do?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hello Walter it has been awhile since we last spoke. Your question leads one to then have to do a study to then determine by what authority was canon established. If you say only scripture is sufficient to comment on which books were inspired and those mentioned in New Testament then you leave out certain books hand have less than the 39 books in the Old Testament. If you break it down by New Testament authors then you would have to certainly consider books in the LXX. If you say the Jews then you have the problem of a certain fluidity of books in Jesus days used by the rabbis, the Essenes, etc... Not to mention that the Tanakh of today dates back to Masoretic text in the 500's AD long after Christianity was well established already using the OT. If you say there was an inspired table of contents in the autographs that is no longer extant then there is no way of determining what that was since there are no copies of that inspired table of contents. If your authority is from the Holy Spirit alone then how did he communicate that to you? The Mormons would say a "burning in a bosom". But is a "burning in the bosom" sufficient authority? I think not. So, then by what authority has said this is canon and this is not. If you say Men inspired by the Holy Spirit. I would agree but then would ask which men and how do you know they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Walter]

Hello Walter it has been awhile since we last spoke. Your question leads one to then have to do a study to then determine by what authority was canon established. If you say only scripture is sufficient to comment on which books were inspired and those mentioned in New Testament then you leave out certain books hand have less than the 39 books in the Old Testament. If you break it down by New Testament authors then you would have to certainly consider books in the LXX. If you say the Jews then you have the problem of a certain fluidity of books in Jesus days used by the rabbis, the Essenes, etc... Not to mention that the Tanakh of today dates back to Masoretic text in the 500's AD long after Christianity was well established already using the OT. If you say there was an inspired table of contents in the autographs that is no longer extant then there is no way of determining what that was since there are no copies of that inspired table of contents. If your authority is from the Holy Spirit alone then how did he communicate that to you? The Mormons would say a "burning in a bosom". But is a "burning in the bosom" sufficient authority? I think not. So, then by what authority has said this is canon and this is not. If you say Men inspired by the Holy Spirit. I would agree but then would ask which men and how do you know they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Hello Thinkingstuff! It certainly has been a while. Welcome back!

 

[Davyboy]

Absolutely no attempt on a rebuttal from the Bible, simply ignoring the facts from the scripture.

FYI: So John was the last apostle that died. Using the Bible Alone, there is no details regarding when or how he died. This information regarding his last days and estimated date of dead comes to us primarily from tradition.

Yeshua1 said in the last thread that He knew that the Early Church is Baptist. And I think that Jon and steaver believe that the Early Church is a non-Catholic, Bible Alone believing Church. Well here is proof that the Early Church opinions followed the Bible Alone and was definitely Baptist.

“Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit” (The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]). Papias

For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]). Irenaeus

For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription Against Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]). Tertullian

Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]). Origen

"So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [circa A.D. 400]). John Chrysostom

So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship towards the East. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten (Exposition of the Faith3:12 [A.D. 712]) John Damascene

Doesn’t everyone agree that the Early Church was a Bible Alone and a Baptist Church?

All that was a very small selection from Early Church. It was said by John Henry Cardinal Newman: "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Absolutely no attempt on a rebuttal from the Bible, simply ignoring the facts from the scripture.

FYI: So John was the last apostle that died. Using the Bible Alone, there is no details regarding when or how he died. This information regarding his last days and estimated date of dead comes to us primarily from tradition.

Yeshua1 said in the last thread that He knew that the Early Church is Baptist. And I think that Jon and steaver believe that the Early Church is a non-Catholic, Bible Alone believing Church. Well here is proof that the Early Church opinions followed the Bible Alone and was definitely Baptist.

“Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit” (The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]). Papias

For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]). Irenaeus

For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription Against Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]). Tertullian

Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]). Origen

"So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [circa A.D. 400]). John Chrysostom

So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship towards the East. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten (Exposition of the Faith3:12 [A.D. 712]) John Damascene

Doesn’t everyone agree that the Early Church was a Bible Alone and a Baptist Church?

All that was a very small selection from Early Church. It was said by John Henry Cardinal Newman: "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

I am having a hard time following you. Are you saying that you believe that the early church was Baptist and Bible alone? If that is the case the quotes you use to support your position seem to support oral tradition. For instance Papias quote says "For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit" The rest of your quotes support the Catholic position. Are you trying to say the early church was indeed catholic and not bible alone? That would make more sense.

 

[Walter]

I am having a hard time following you. Are you saying that you believe that the early church was Baptist and Bible alone? If that is the case the quotes you use to support your position seem to support oral tradition. For instance Papias quote says "For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit" The rest of your quotes support the Catholic position. Are you trying to say the early church was indeed catholic and not bible alone? That would make more sense.

I'm fairly certain that post by Davyboy was meant to be tongue-in-cheek

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm fairly certain that post by Davyboy was meant to be tongue-in-cheek

OH, I'm slow on the up take. That makes sense.