Featured Different interpretations based on different interpretations.... lol

The Word of God isn’t just written, it’s Spoken in Apostolic Tradition, The Tradition of The Holy Spirit.

 

The only Church at large were Catholics.

 

The RCC did not exist for the first 200 or so years. There was no bishop of Rome who was pope. As I said the RCC has changed the scriptures to suit their purposes and now you see that they change history as well.

You are not basing your comments on scripture but on what the RCC tells you. Rather circular logic there Cathode.

 

And who tells you what that spoken Apostolic tradition is, Oh right the RCC that says Apostolic tradition supports it. Circular thinking there Cathode.

Trust the written Word of God. Your RCC has no biblical support for it's Apostolic tradition.

 

Your understanding is filtered though a bunch of men who 'claim' some so-called historic apostolic authority'. Others make that same claim.

 

How am I supposed to agree with that?
When the Apostolic teaching that I know contradicts that? Where is our common ground? We have the New Testament Scriptures. What exactly case by case are we disagreeing on? Common text or different text?

1 Corinthians 1:10, ". . . Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. . . ." Well? Some 1970 years for this.

 

Say your great, great, great Grandfather wrote a book and it got distributed down through time. Your family tradition from father to son knows far more about the meaning of that book than some new guy off the street who only just read the book. You have a living family tradition that knows the original meaning.

The new guy off the street is the book alone interpreter, coming up with his own erroneous opinions about the book. He starts mouthing off at you and your family telling them that they are wrong about the books meaning, whereas you and your family knows the original full meaning of the book and far far more besides.

The new guy off the street is Bible alone Protestantism, with text alone they think they know better than the Church the book came from.

 

Make believe book is not the New Testament record. And those of us{you and me} who have the Holy Spirit in us, is not subjective imagination. Romans 8:16, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: . . ."

 

How’s that working.

Luther came up with the new revolutionary idea of “ Bible alone “, he said he was guided by The Holy Spirit to interpret scripture. Does his Holy Spirit guided interpretation of scripture, match your Holy Spirit guided interpretation of scripture?

No. So it’s a manifestly false idea.

The Holy Spirit operates in Apostolic Oral Tradition, they “preached “ by the power of the Spirit. People remembered by The Holy Spirit what they “heard “ by The Holy Spirit.

“But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

“ Hold to the traditions we taught you either by word of mouth or by letter “

Protestantism rejected the Apostolic Oral Tradition where The Holy Spirit operates, in the living Oral Tradition Spoken Father to Son.

That’s solves the mystery of why Bible aloners scattered into thousands of conflicting interpretations of the same book.
The Holy Spirit operates in the living Spoken and Heard Word Tradition down the ages explaining the original meaning of the written Tradition.

 

You are basing your comments on what the RCC has told you. They say they are the only ones that can interpret the text of scripture but we see from the text of scripture that they can not.

What verses have the RCC gotten right in their interpretation? W#hat have they gotten wrong,
451 Baptism regenerates
500 Sacrifice of the Mass
1190 Indulgences
1215 Transubstantiation
1438 Purgatory
1545 Tradition equal to Bible
1854 Immaculate conception of mary
1870 Papal infallibility
1950 Assumption of mary

They have quite a track record of missing the mark. Truth and the RCC do not go together.

 

How does it work.

Luke 10:16 He who hears you (not “who reads your writings”), hears me.

Jesus preaches and teaches the Apostles by The Holy Spirit, the Apostles recall and preach and teach by The Holy Spirit, those that succeed the Apostles recall and preach and teach by The Holy Spirit.

So it’s the living Oral Tradition of The Holy Spirit.

So the same understanding and interpretation gets preached down the ages.

Not the new textual criticism idea which scattered into thousands conflicting interpretations and doctrines.

 

Where is Apostolic Oral Tradition in Scripture.

“For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.”

The Thessalonians heard the Gospel by the power of The Holy Spirit.

 

@Cathode,
The warning 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, ". . . But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, . . ."

 

How are the two the same? How are the two different? How is the non-New Testament Oral traditions superior with New Testament than the New Testament alone?

 

The Oral Tradition explains the Written Tradition, without it you can’t really understand scripture.
The Christian religion was never just confined to texts alone. That’s the false idea Luther started.
For the first 400 years there was no declared Bible.

The scriptures were the Liturgy of the Catholic Church, before the Catholic Church Canonised them

The Bible itself was determined by Apostolic Tradition.

 

Then by your own words the RCC is not abiding by the Apostolic tradition.in scripture. They have changed scripture and added they own dogma's that are not biblical. They are teaching a different gospel so are accursed.

Gal_1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you; unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Why has the RCC added to the Gospel that the Apostle Paul received from Christ Jesus?

 

What are you talking about?

 

The canon of the bible itself was determined by God. Flawed men used of God preserved the manuscripts and brought them together. While there were spurious manuscripts at the time they were not widely accepted so the canon developed over time as the Apostles inspired works were accepted as the Word of God.


Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX), the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the New Testament developed over time.

The writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century C.E. Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the "memoirs of the apostles," which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.

A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly. By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation. Likewise, by 200 C.E., the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, there were also precedents for the current canon dating back to the second century.
Biblical canon - New World Encyclopedia

History shows you another false claim by your RCC. Cathode you put way to much stock in that institution. Read the bible for yourself and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into a biblical understanding of His inspired word.

 

You keep making the claim that the RCC followed Apostolic tradition but it has been pointed out to you a number of times what their errors are. The gospel is just one more thing the RCC has distorted.

 

You mean if someone comes along and preaches another Jesus conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity. From their private interpretation of Scripture.

This is all Catholic history, no Protestant or Baptist’s had anything to do with preserving the scriptures from the Apostles and determining the Canon. They didn’t exist then.
All done by the Catholic Church. And all the Church fathers writings come down to us only through Catholic tradition.