Baptism question that seems unbiblical

epostle1 said:

I cannot agree that Peter was ever singled out as any future leader of any universal ‘church.’ It is not in scripture, explicitly or implicitly that suggest that Peter progressed to build a building(s), an earthly ‘church’ for Christ.

Click to expand...

A building is not a church, I never said it was. It would have been illegal and the Romans would have destroyed it.

I said no such thing. Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

Origins of the word "Catholic" is found in the Greek kataholis, Romans 1:8:
….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATAnggeletai Gk.) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo Gk.)” (KATAHOLO)
and Acts 9:31. "church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria" Those are statements of universality. "Non-denominational and Protestant" are foreign to scripture.
There the words "church throughout all" is translated from the Greek words "Ecclesia KATAHOLIS"

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8, Acts 9:31
deny, deny, deny...

But it was after Ignatius that the term Catholic Church became used more and more to designate the true church. deny, deny, deny...

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.”
Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
Other written records of the term "CATHOLIC" describing a character of the Christian Church:

Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

Early Church Fathers? the standard non-denom fix:

"...upon this ROCK I will build my alien entity....

Don't expect any further dialogue from me, you are having your own monologue.[/QUOTE]

I'm really sorry you were offended by my comments. I had no intention of doing that, I only wanted to share my view..
Please reconsider...

God Bless you,

APAK

Stranger said:

You could appeal to Scripture.

Stranger

Click to expand...

Nobody appealed to scripture alone until the 16th century. Without Tradition you end up with the chaos of Protestantism. Or you make up your own traditions and call it confessions of faith.

i notice anarchy and chaos being conflated quite often, i guess to most ppl they are as synonymous as earth and world?

epostle1 said:

Talk to your doctor about how you feel about the CC, then maybe we can have a civilized discussion. I don't waste time with psychotic rants.

Click to expand...

Do you want me to show you the doctrine.
It's best to understand the facts of things before taking the word of others.
Ignorance is bliss they say.
I am fine with the RCC when it's explained in depth, but I am not impressed with the shallow rubbish played out by dilettantes, I have had to put up with such people, as I have experienced with my children being in the Catholic school education of over 12 years, when I talked to the last principle it ended up confessing to me that it had no idea about Christianity much at all, but the new priest was teaching it and sadly he was the worst priest I have ever met, but he would make a good communist.
They gladly waved the rainbow flag and Political Correctness as their gods that must be served above all, or they would try to flame anyone who questioned it.

BreadOfLife said:

Really?

NAME one. Name just ONE satanist who has "infiltrated" the Church and made changes to it.
While you're at it - clean up your potty mouth and show me how the Church is a "Satanic load of cra_"

Something tells me that you don't have a CLUE as to what the Catholic Church teaches . . .

Click to expand...

The biggest Satanist is Pope Frances, he is just like a freemason and Jesuits are the worst Christian criminals in history, I my self am a Franciscan.

Boy if you can't see that the Church is loosing good Christians for years, due to all the Politically correct doctrines and gutless priest that fear preaching everything the bible, it's like oh we best not say all of what Jesus did and said for fear of offending one of our new age socialist Marxist who as set to become much like the Nazis of the future.
The Jesuits were in bed with the Nazis and the communist, they are a scheming scamming bunch of golden calf worshipers.

They call the RCC the Electric Church because every time you go you get a shock.
Oh boy, how come I have 3 RC Priest who are my relations and how many others that all truly devout RC who go the Church near every day, that point out all the rot and they say the Pope is of Satan. they are in their 70's and 80's good truly devout Christians that no one could deny.

Hey and while I am at it Satan never was seen to have a potty mouth and do you know why that is, he is a tempter of delusions, who comes across as a truly nice bloke, now how did he talk to Eve ? oh by the way in 44 years in my trade I have come across many a shady character and not one had a potty mouth but were cunning as they come, working at ripping off people was their game 24/7 now most say how could such a one sleep strait in bed at night, well they sleep very well because they claim to be smarter and all who fall for their folly are just seen as stupid fools.

Having a potty mouth is a carnal Sin is it, is it in the commandments ?
Don't Bigots make claims they are above others.

epostle1 said:

I cannot agree that Peter was ever singled out as any future leader of any universal ‘church.’ It is not in scripture, explicitly or implicitly that suggest that Peter progressed to build a building(s), an earthly ‘church’ for Christ.

Click to expand...

A building is not a church, I never said it was. It would have been illegal and the Romans would have destroyed it.

I said no such thing. Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

Origins of the word "Catholic" is found in the Greek kataholis, Romans 1:8:
….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATAnggeletai Gk.) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo Gk.)” (KATAHOLO)
and Acts 9:31. "church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria" Those are statements of universality. "Non-denominational and Protestant" are foreign to scripture.
There the words "church throughout all" is translated from the Greek words "Ecclesia KATAHOLIS" > Catholicus (Latin) Catholic (English)

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8, Acts 9:31


But it was after Ignatius that the term Catholic Church became used more and more to designate the true church. deny, deny, deny...

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
deny, deny, deny...

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.”
Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
deny, deny, deny...

Other written records of the term "CATHOLIC" describing a character of the Christian Church:

Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

Early Church Fathers? the standard non-denom fix:

"...YOU are Peter and upon this ROCK I will build my alien entity....

You are just another under educated religious wacko that lacks humility and can't be taught anything.[/QUOTE]
The Roman Catholic Church never claim to be a denomination.
Catholic is not a denomination as truly their can only be one Church.

epostle1 said:

Nobody appealed to scripture alone until the 16th century. Without Tradition you end up with the chaos of Protestantism. Or you make up your own traditions and call it confessions of faith.

Click to expand...

Ah...not so. (Acts 17:11) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily , whether those things were so."

Stranger

epostle1 said:

The Church is built on Peter because that is Jesus' plan, I never said the Church is built on Peter alone.

Click to expand...

His church is being built on revelation, if you are not in His church you wont get any, so twisted by men the truth.

Reggie Belafonte said:

The biggest Satanist is Pope Frances, he is just like a freemason and Jesuits are the worst Christian criminals in history, I my self am a Franciscan.

Boy if you can't see that the Church is loosing good Christians for years, due to all the Politically correct doctrines and gutless priest that fear preaching everything the bible, it's like oh we best not say all of what Jesus did and said for fear of offending one of our new age socialist Marxist who as set to become much like the Nazis of the future.
The Jesuits were in bed with the Nazis and the communist, they are a scheming scamming bunch of golden calf worshipers.

They call the RCC the Electric Church because every time you go you get a shock.
Oh boy, how come I have 3 RC Priest who are my relations and how many others that all truly devout RC who go the Church near every day, that point out all the rot and they say the Pope is of Satan. they are in their 70's and 80's good truly devout Christians that no one could deny.

Hey and while I am at it Satan never was seen to have a potty mouth and do you know why that is, he is a tempter of delusions, who comes across as a truly nice bloke, now how did he talk to Eve ? oh by the way in 44 years in my trade I have come across many a shady character and not one had a potty mouth but were cunning as they come, working at ripping off people was their game 24/7 now most say how could such a one sleep strait in bed at night, well they sleep very well because they claim to be smarter and all who fall for their folly are just seen as stupid fools.

Having a potty mouth is a carnal Sin is it, is it in the commandments ?
Don't Bigots make claims they are above others.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that extremely impotent list of sweeping generalizations.

I asked your for examples - and all you gave me were the angry rants of some of your elderly relatives. I can make the exacts same asinine comments about ANY group - but without evidence, I have failed miserably.

If you don't have any proof - just say so and move on.

Stranger said:

Ah...not so. (Acts 17:11) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily , whether those things were so."

Stranger

Click to expand...

And NOWHERE does Acts 17:11 say that they only appealed to the Scriptures.

You're adding words and ideas to Scripture that simply aren't there.

BreadOfLife said:

And NOWHERE does Acts 17:11 say that they only appealed to the Scriptures.

You're adding words and ideas to Scripture that simply aren't there.

Click to expand...

And nowhere in (Acts 17:11) does it say that the Bereans appealed to anything else but Scripture. But it does say they appealed to Scripture. It is not I, but you who are adding words. I say they appealed to Scripture. And nothing else is indicated that they appealed to anything else. You however want to make it sound as if they did appeal to something else. Though it is never said.

Scripture only. The enemy of the Romanist.

Stranger

Stranger said:

And nowhere in (Acts 17:11) does it say that the Bereans appealed to anything else but Scripture. But it does say they appealed to Scripture. It is not I, but you who are adding words. I say they appealed to Scripture. And nothing else is indicated that they appealed to anything else. You however want to make it sound as if they did appeal to something else. Though it is never said.
Scripture only. The enemy of the Romanist.
Stranger

Click to expand...

Scripture only - the enemy of Scripture itself.

Nowhere do we find this fallacy explicitly OR implicitly taught. NOWHERE.
Yet you guys have formulated an entire doctrine around this false Luther-invented idea.

Pay attention:
Acts 17:11 says, "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Paul was teaching them from the Scriptures, so where else are they going to search to find out if it was true??
This in NO way indicates the man-made falsehood of Sola Scriptura. It simply states that they went to the SOURCE from which Paul was teaching them.

BreadOfLife said:

Scripture only - the enemy of Scripture itself.

Nowhere do we find this fallacy explicitly OR implicitly taught. NOWHERE.
Yet you guys have formulated an entire doctrine around this false Luther-invented idea.

Pay attention:
Acts 17:11 says, "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Paul was teaching them from the Scriptures, so where else are they going to search to find out if it was true??
This in NO way indicates the man-made falsehood of Sola Scriptura. It simply states that they went to the SOURCE from which Paul was teaching them.

Click to expand...

Lets see....Paul reasoned with the Bereans out of the Scripture. The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul was saying was so. Sounds like Sola Scriputura to me.

Oh wait...I know. It doesn't say Paul didn't reason with the Bereans with tradition. So in the Romanist mind, he did. It doesn't say in the Scriptures that there is no pope over the Church of Christ. So in the Romanist mind, there is. It doesn't say in the Scriptures that Mary was without sin. So in the Romanist mind she was. I get it. As long as the exact wording is not used then you can claim whatever.

Yes, you yourself prove that Scriputre only is the enemy of the Romanist.

Stranger

Stranger said:

Ah...not so. (Acts 17:11) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily , whether those things were so."

Stranger

Click to expand...

That is a scriptural EXCUSE, and not a scriptural REASON.
1. It doesn’t say they searched the Scriptures “alone.”

2. The Scriptures they did search were the Old Testament Scriptures to verify that Jesus was the Messiah. Are you saying that the OT Scriptures are sufficient?

3. They accepted Paul’s oral preaching as the Word of God even before they searched the Scriptures, which also poses a problem for you. Do you accept the oral apostolic tradition as well?

4. You cannot find one verse in Scripture that says Scripture is the only infallible authority of God’s word, and yet that is what you presume.

5. King James based his bible translation off the Latin Vulgate, which was translated by Jerome under Pope Damasus and the Catholic Church, before the KJV came out. Why do “YOU PEOPLE” use a Catholic book to ridicule the very institution who gave you the book?

Also, don’t quote anymore from the KJV. He was a sodomite with no religious authority over me, you or anyone else. Also, his wife figured it out. She became a Catholic.

Finally, the Bereans were GREEK Jews, who used the GREEK Septuagint, 200 years before Christ that included the books the Protestants threw out 15+ centuries later.

Dragging Mary into the discussion, when it's not about Mary, is a sign of panic.

BreadOfLife said:

Thank you for that extremely impotent list of sweeping generalizations.

I asked your for examples - and all you gave me were the angry rants of some of your elderly relatives. I can make the exacts same asinine comments about ANY group - but without evidence, I have failed miserably.

If you don't have any proof - just say so and move on.

Click to expand...

Not angry rants but facts.
People are leaving the Church in droves. fact !
Pope Frances is not a man of God not a servant of Jesus Christ at all, but in bed with Islam and the so called Zionist and the world, this is a fact and noting but.
You see I can not say such things like that about the other Popes.
But Pope Frances has nothing going for him at all.
Pope Frances has been seen kissing the hand of the wealthiest man in the world, as one would do to the Pope when sitting in his Chair and this is how it was done, the Pope came to this sitting in a Chair and did just as such, that was making himself out as a sub servant to Rothschild, showing the whole world who he truly bows down to.
I don't know of any Pope in history that has kissed the hand of anyone before this grub.

Thing is it's not only my relatives saying they don't like this Pope but everyone I know who are devout Christians and sadly the ones who like him are Atheist who admire him in droves the Media love him and the lukewarm Christians who know jack and support mans works Socialist rubbish and Political Correct type Nazis who run about telling everyone how to think nowadays or else they come the heavy trying to destroy anyone who opposes their views.
Can't you see that fact ? truly you come across to me as one who would of been even blinded to Nazi Germany back in the day for sure.
Christianity is being turned upside down, bending over backwards for Islam and supporting rubbish like the so called Zionist who are mainly Satanic who totally support Sodomite behaviour and reject the OT and Holy Moses, oh my, can't you see it's true, even Christianity is full of it not to mention the RCC and Pope Frances backs the Sodomites up not to mention Abortion for crying out loud ! that's worshiping Moloch.

epostle1 said:

That is a scriptural EXCUSE, and not a scriptural REASON.
1. It doesn’t say they searched the Scriptures “alone.”

2. The Scriptures they did search were the Old Testament Scriptures to verify that Jesus was the Messiah. Are you saying that the OT Scriptures are sufficient?

3. They accepted Paul’s oral preaching as the Word of God even before they searched the Scriptures, which also poses a problem for you. Do you accept the oral apostolic tradition as well?

4. You cannot find one verse in Scripture that says Scripture is the only infallible authority of God’s word, and yet that is what you presume.

5. King James based his bible translation off the Latin Vulgate, which was translated by Jerome under Pope Damasus and the Catholic Church, before the KJV came out. Why do “YOU PEOPLE” use a Catholic book to ridicule the very institution who gave you the book?

Also, don’t quote anymore from the KJV. He was a sodomite with no religious authority over me, you or anyone else. Also, his wife figured it out. She became a Catholic.

Finally, the Bereans were GREEK Jews, who used the GREEK Septuagint, 200 years before Christ that included the books the Protestants threw out 15+ centuries later.

Dragging Mary into the discussion, when it's not about Mary, is a sign of panic.

Click to expand...

It says they searched the 'Scriptures daily'. Thus appeal is made to the Scriptures to determine if a thing is so. Which means you are in error in saying no one appealed to Scriptures only until the 16th century. Nothing is said about appealing to any 'tradition'.

The Old Testament Scriptures were sufficient to determine what Paul was saying, because Paul used the Old Testament Scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 17:2-3)

Why is their 'searching the Scriptures' a problem for me? I accept the oral teaching of Paul that he put into writing by the Spirit of God. Which is found in the New Testament epistles.

(Matt. 5:18)

And the Latin Vulgate was a product of the 'Old Latin Version'. 'We people' don't mind using a product of the Catholic Church as we are part of the Catholic Church. We do mind the Church at Rome acting as if they are over the Catholic Church.

Foolish statement. King James was an instrument used to further the translation process. "King James had summoned in 1604 a meeting of representatives of diverse religious groups to discuss the question of religious toleration. At this gathering, known as the Hampton Court Conference,Dr. John Reynolds of Oxford raised the possibility of a new translation. The king welcomed the suggestion and soon was working out necessary procedures...."(How We Got The Bible, Neil R. Lightfoot, Baker Book House, 1963, p. 101) You may as well disregard Christ's crucifxion because Pilate was not a believer.

There is nothing here to indicate any Greek Septuigent. You want a word for word quote from me in Scripture to prove things yet you assume these are quoting from some supposed Septuigent.

You dragged in the KJV and King James, yet are upset because I brought up Romes belief in Mary not being a sinner as an example. Seems you are wearing black here.

Stranger

Stranger said:

It says they searched the 'Scriptures daily'. Thus appeal is made to the Scriptures to determine if a thing is so. Which means you are in error in saying no one appealed to Scriptures only until the 16th century. Nothing is said about appealing to any 'tradition'.

The Old Testament Scriptures were sufficient to determine what Paul was saying, because Paul used the Old Testament Scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 17:2-3)

Why is their 'searching the Scriptures' a problem for me? I accept the oral teaching of Paul that he put into writing by the Spirit of God. Which is found in the New Testament epistles.

(Matt. 5:18)

And the Latin Vulgate was a product of the 'Old Latin Version'. 'We people' don't mind using a product of the Catholic Church as we are part of the Catholic Church. We do mind the Church at Rome acting as if they are over the Catholic Church.

Foolish statement. King James was an instrument used to further the translation process. "King James had summoned in 1604 a meeting of representatives of diverse religious groups to discuss the question of religious toleration. At this gathering, known as the Hampton Court Conference,Dr. John Reynolds of Oxford raised the possibility of a new translation. The king welcomed the suggestion and soon was working out necessary procedures...."(How We Got The Bible, Neil R. Lightfoot, Baker Book House, 1963, p. 101) You may as well disregard Christ's crucifxion because Pilate was not a believer.

There is nothing here to indicate any Greek Septuigent. You want a word for word quote from me in Scripture to prove things yet you assume these are quoting from some supposed Septuigent.

You dragged in the KJV and King James, yet are upset because I brought up Romes belief in Mary not being a sinner as an example. Seems you are wearing black here.

Stranger

Click to expand...

You are blind to the truth that the Bereans first listened to Paul's oral preaching, THEN searched the scriptures. You threw Mary in as a red herring.

Reggie Belafonte said:

Not angry rants but facts.
People are leaving the Church in droves. fact !
Pope Frances is not a man of God not a servant of Jesus Christ at all, but in bed with Islam and the so called Zionist and the world, this is a fact and noting but.
You see I can not say such things like that about the other Popes.
But Pope Frances has nothing going for him at all.
Pope Frances has been seen kissing the hand of the wealthiest man in the world, as one would do to the Pope when sitting in his Chair and this is how it was done, the Pope came to this sitting in a Chair and did just as such, that was making himself out as a sub servant to Rothschild, showing the whole world who he truly bows down to.
I don't know of any Pope in history that has kissed the hand of anyone before this grub.

Thing is it's not only my relatives saying they don't like this Pope but everyone I know who are devout Christians and sadly the ones who like him are Atheist who admire him in droves the Media love him and the lukewarm Christians who know jack and support mans works Socialist rubbish and Political Correct type Nazis who run about telling everyone how to think nowadays or else they come the heavy trying to destroy anyone who opposes their views.
Can't you see that fact ? truly you come across to me as one who would of been even blinded to Nazi Germany back in the day for sure.
Christianity is being turned upside down, bending over backwards for Islam and supporting rubbish like the so called Zionist who are mainly Satanic who totally support Sodomite behaviour and reject the OT and Holy Moses, oh my, can't you see it's true, even Christianity is full of it not to mention the RCC and Pope Frances backs the Sodomites up not to mention Abortion for crying out loud ! that's worshiping Moloch.

Click to expand...

I apologize for calling your previous posts "angry rants" - because they PALE in comparison to this insane diatribe.
What a mindless set of accusations - ALL without any evidence whatsoever.

Look - here's a little advice about debating . . .
If you can't substantiate anything you say - then maybe you shouldn't say it until you CAN substantiate it. It only serves to expose your ignorant hatred . . .

Stranger said:

Lets see....Paul reasoned with the Bereans out of the Scripture. The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul was saying was so. Sounds like Sola Scriputura to me.

Oh wait...I know. It doesn't say Paul didn't reason with the Bereans with tradition. So in the Romanist mind, he did. It doesn't say in the Scriptures that there is no pope over the Church of Christ. So in the Romanist mind, there is. It doesn't say in the Scriptures that Mary was without sin. So in the Romanist mind she was. I get it. As long as the exact wording is not used then you can claim whatever.

Yes, you yourself prove that Scriputre only is the enemy of the Romanist.

Stranger

Click to expand...

The Scriptures may be the enemy of "Romanists" - whoever they are - but not to Catholics.

Acts 17:11 says that the Bereans searched the Scriptures - which was the Old Testament.
Tell me something - did they search the Catholic Canon of the OT - or the reduced and edited Protestant Canon??

When Acts was written - the Jewish Canon of Scripture was an OPEN canon, which contained 46 Books.

It wasn't until AFTER the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ - and AFTER the destruction of the Temple that they jettisoned 7 Books and parts of Esther and Daniel and closed the Canon.

So - if YOU believe in Sola Scriptura - why do you reject some of the "Scriptura"??
Why do YOU hold to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon instead of the Canon that HE and the Bereans studied from??
And why do you hold to a doctrine that isn't even implied in Scripture, which YOU hold to be our "Sole Authority"??

Stranger said:

It says they searched the 'Scriptures daily'. Thus appeal is made to the Scriptures to determine if a thing is so. Which means you are in error in saying no one appealed to Scriptures only until the 16th century.

Click to expand...

That is not what I said.

Nothing is said about appealing to any 'tradition'.

Click to expand...

They listened to Paul's oral preaching FIRST, what we call tradition, then, after they heard Paul's oral preaching, (Tradition) they searched the scriptures. Paul didn't write to them at that time. You are trying to tell me that Paul wrote scriptures cancelling out any oral preaching. That's not what it says. There is nothing in Scripture that says Paul wrote everything out and then read it. You are forced to change the meaning of TRADITION into something it never was.

The Old Testament Scriptures were sufficient to determine what Paul was saying, because Paul used the Old Testament Scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 17:2-3)

Why is their 'searching the Scriptures' a problem for me? I accept the oral teaching of Paul that he put into writing by the Spirit of God. Which is found in the New Testament epistles.

Click to expand...

You don't accept the oral teaching of Paul without your man made conditions. It has to be written or it' not acceptable. That is not how Tradition works.
(Matt. 5:18) Paul's inspired writing is not the issue here. Paul never said his writing was the sole rule of faith. sola Paul??? There is nothing in Scripture that says Paul wrote out all his preaching to be read later. That's just silly.

And the Latin Vulgate was a product of the 'Old Latin Version'. 'We people' don't mind using a product of the Catholic Church as we are part of the Catholic Church. We do mind the Church at Rome acting as if they are over the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

When did it stop?

Foolish statement. King James was an instrument used to further the translation process. "King James had summoned in 1604 a meeting of representatives of diverse religious groups to discuss the question of religious toleration. At this gathering, known as the Hampton Court Conference,Dr. John Reynolds of Oxford raised the possibility of a new translation. The king welcomed the suggestion and soon was working out necessary procedures...."(How We Got The Bible, Neil R. Lightfoot, Baker Book House, 1963, p. 101) You may as well disregard Christ's crucifxion because Pilate was not a believer.

Click to expand...

The canon of the Bible was completed in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage by Catholic bishops. Maybe you should re-read that book. The Bible came from the Catholic Church, that is a historical FACT. That must be true because Martin Luther said so.

There is nothing here to indicate any Greek Septuigent. You want a word for word quote from me in Scripture to prove things yet you assume these are quoting from some supposed Septuigent.

Click to expand...

You refuse to accept the fact that the Bereans were GREEK Pharisees, so you obfuscate. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and used by the early Church. The Septuagint is also called the translation of the seventy because tradition states that the Septuagint was translated by seventy. In academia, the Septuagint is often abbreviated as LXX (the Roman numberal for seventy) in honor of this tradition. https://www.septuagint.bible/
Biblical Hebrew manuscripts are the Holy Scripture- received, recorded, and preserved by the Jewish people. They have been carefully copied from the originals throughout the millennia. These Ancient Hebrew Scrolls make up the only complete set of the TANAKH (Hebrew Scriptures, or what some refer to as the Old Testament) in the world that you can see. The TANAKH

Sixteen scrolls make up an entire TANAKH; however, this traveling Ancient Hebrew Scroll display contains all 16 scrolls plus duplicates making this collection a total of 40 scrolls.

Scrolls in the display are unique and most of them are 250 years old or older. Six of the scrolls in the collection were commissioned by this project to be written in Jerusalem by a scribe (sofer) when a worldwide search failed to discover those needed to complete the set. These ancient scrolls were written in countries all over the world: Israel, Poland, Iraq, Morocco, and Russia to name a few; however, each scroll at different times and in its own history, made its way to Jerusalem and from there was discovered and purchased by this project. Each scroll has a look and a story of its own.
Ancient Hebrew Scroll Brochure 2016.pdf
Click to View the Scroll Collection

You dragged in the KJV and King James, yet are upset because I brought up Romes belief in Mary not being a sinner as an example. Seems you are wearing black here.

Click to expand...

Shame on me for going off topic.