Silence Of Women

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
In other words you can't find it yourself.
I've asked Catholics no less than half a dozen times both here and the real world and I've never had one bring me evidence of anyone of Peter's day considering him a Pope.

My brother, you have the internet at your fingertips, and I'm pretty sure that you also have google. If you really are interested, do the research on your own. How difficult can it be? :unsure: :blink:
 

TexUs

New Member
Nov 18, 2010
1,197
37
0
My brother, you have the internet at your fingertips, and I'm pretty sure that you also have google. If you really are interested, do the research on your own. How difficult can it be? :unsure: :blink:
Lack of evidence proves my point. You're the one that must prove said doctrine.
 

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
Lack of evidence proves my point. You're the one that must prove said doctrine.

(Sigh!) Okay...fine. Lazy...lazy...lazy. :p Here is the weblink below showing the lineage of the Catholic Church going all the way back to the Apostle Peter. You see how easy that is....when you have googles.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

By the way, the information is also in the Britanica Encyclopedia, which is a secular encyclopedia.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by OUR epistle." - Selene

-- You will note: "have learned." Meaning past tense.

You say: "St. Paul was referring to a tradition that was taught by them by their words or by their epistle, and not by anyone else. It is an "apostolic" tradition, not a tradition from the past."


So again I ask:

"You are saying that the Apostles themselves said we should pray the rosary, Mary didn't die or have additional children after Jesus, we should pray to Mary or the dead saints for intercession, said the mass LITERALLY turns bread and wine into the actually body and blood of Christ, there is a place called Purgatory, a place called Limbo, and that there should be an ongoing position of Pope and he will be infallible?

You will also note that Paul said traditions "which you have learned" putting it in the past tense. That means the traditions in place AT THAT TIME.

Care to show where ANY of the things I mentioned were practiced traditions in place AT THAT TIME?"


-- The question is simple. Where and when did the actual Apostles encourage these things?
Paul was talking about the things accepted AT THAT TIME.
Remember, he said "HAVE LEARNED."

Having spent the first 22 years of my life a Catholic I have learned that several of these practices were established/created CENTURIES after the original Apostles and Paul walked the earth and not based on anything they supported or encouraged.



Selene, you are still skipping this one.

While I can understand why you would, I think an answer is in order.
 

TexUs

New Member
Nov 18, 2010
1,197
37
0
(Sigh!) Okay...fine. Lazy...lazy...lazy. :p Here is the weblink below showing the lineage of the Catholic Church going all the way back to the Apostle Peter. You see how easy that is....when you have googles.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

By the way, the information is also in the Britanica Encyclopedia, which is a secular encyclopedia.
Wow a website compiled by Catholics... In the order they want to think the succession worked.

Please observe my request: a document from the days of Peter (when he was still alive) that identifies him as being the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wow a website compiled by Catholics... In the order they want to think the succession worked.

Please observe my request: a document from the days of Peter (when he was still alive) that identifies him as being the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.


I'll get that for you, right after you provide a document from Jesus' hand supporting sola scriptura.

 

TexUs

New Member
Nov 18, 2010
1,197
37
0
I'll get that for you, right after you provide a document from Jesus' hand supporting sola scriptura.
You know there is no direct statement on this but it's still a Biblical concept much like the Trinity.






Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”
<You can argue that "written" meant other non-Scriptural teachings, but is that what Jesus quoted from, or did he speak as if "what is written" is Scripture?>


Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”<If anyone on earth could have used tradition or even started their own, it was Christ. Yet he stuck to Scripture only when tempted by Satan himself!>

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

<Luke didn't trust the accounts of men???>


All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
<Even if tradition could be proved, it's a useless thing since the Bible is sufficient>


“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
<Interpretation was up to the people, not a Pope in a glass box telling you how to interpret it>


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.
<You mean the church didn't weigh the gospel against tradition???>


Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
<There's that which isn't written of, and it doesn't matter. Because the Scripture is still full! John speaks against "RCC alone has the full truth" right here, because the full truth can be found in John's letter!>


You can find many examples of people using Scripture and Scripture alone to rebuke others, and the only times we see traditions referred to it was done in a negative light (Mark 7).
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You know there is no direct statement on this but it's still a Biblical concept much like the Trinity.

Ah, I see you can look beyond a literal interpretation of scripture, but only when it benefits you....

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”
<You can argue that "written" meant other non-Scriptural teachings, but is that what Jesus quoted from, or did he speak as if "what is written" is Scripture?>

Ok - when are you going to throw out the NT? In fact, we could not even count this reference as scripture because it was going beyond the written word - the OT

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
[font="arial][size="3"]Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”[/size][font="arial][size="3"]Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”[/size][/font][font="arial][size="3"]<If anyone on earth could have used tradition or even started their own, it was Christ. Yet he stuck to Scripture only when tempted by Satan himself!>[/size][/font][/font]
[font="arial][size="3"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial][size="3"] [/size][font="arial][size="3"]Indeed. Yet He never addressed the Devil by mail - He did it verbally, which of course, goes beyond the written word.
[/size][/font][/font]
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

<Luke didn't trust the accounts of men???>

Awesome, too bad it goes beyond the written word....

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
<Even if tradition could be proved, it's a useless thing since the Bible is sufficient>

Safeway is sufficient to provide groceries for my family, but I also shop at other grocery stores, which are also sufficient. The word sufficient in this verse does not mean that the OT is the only source for instruction, it means that it is acceptable or satisfactory. For me, I also like to refer to the NT.

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
<Interpretation was up to the people, not a Pope in a glass box telling you how to interpret it>

Really? So you think that he was promoting private interpretation of the scriptures? How about for the majority of Christians who didn't know how to read? Where were they supposed to go?
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.
<You mean the church didn't weigh the gospel against tradition???>

Yep, those Bereans sure liked their OT. Hope they all knew how to read Hebrew - being Greeks, themselves.
Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
<There's that which isn't written of, and it doesn't matter. Because the Scripture is still full! John speaks against "RCC alone has the full truth" right here, because the full truth can be found in John's letter!>

Um....John's letter was not considered scripture yet - it qualifies as 'writing beyond the written word' so how can it be sufficient? It was also oral tradition of the church before it was widely circulated as scripture.

You can find many examples of people using Scripture and Scripture alone to rebuke others, and the only times we see traditions referred to it was done in a negative light (Mark 7).

The only time?

[font="Verdana][size="2"]1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
[/size][/font]
[font="Verdana] [/font]
[font="Verdana][size="3"]1 Corinthians 7:17
Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.
[/size][/font]
[font="Verdana][size="3"] [/size][/font]
[font="Verdana][size="3"]1 Corinthians 14:26
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. (all traditions of the church)
[/size][/font]
[font="Verdana][size="3"] [/size][/font]
[font="Verdana][size="3"]1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (Hmm....the Church is the foundation of the truth? I guess it would have made Luther happy if it said the Bible is the foundation of the truth - but it says the church - psst..not to worry, Luther - just add the word 'alone' after faith - no one can read anyway)
[/size][/font]
[font="Verdana] [/font]
 

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
Wow a website compiled by Catholics... In the order they want to think the succession worked.

Please observe my request: a document from the days of Peter (when he was still alive) that identifies him as being the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.


You can find the same information in any secular encyclopedia. In fact, it is also found in an almanac. You misunderstood the word "Pope." Pope only means "Father." St. Peter and all his successors are the "bishops of Rome." There are documents going back to the first century showing that St. Peter was the bishop of Rome. Why else did you think that secular books like the Britanica Encyclopedia and the Almanac already accepted that list? You can start reading all the letters of Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Clement (who was ordained a priest by the Apostle Peter). After all, the secular researchers did and decided from their writings that Peter was not only in Rome but even the Bishop of Rome. You have the internet, so I'm sure their writings are found there. :)
 

TexUs

New Member
Nov 18, 2010
1,197
37
0
Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”
<You can argue that "written" meant other non-Scriptural teachings, but is that what Jesus quoted from, or did he speak as if "what is written" is Scripture?>

Ok - when are you going to throw out the NT? In fact, we could not even count this reference as scripture because it was going beyond the written word - the OT

2 Peter 3:16, the letters of the NT were considered Scripture at the time. Do you really wish to belittle the Apostles?

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”<If anyone on earth could have used tradition or even started their own, it was Christ. Yet he stuck to Scripture only when tempted by Satan himself!>

Indeed. Yet He never addressed the Devil by mail - He did it verbally, which of course, goes beyond the written word.

Are you serious? QUOTING THE WRITTEN WORD is still THE WRITTEN WORD.


Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

<Luke didn't trust the accounts of men???>

Awesome, too bad it goes beyond the written word....

If this is the conclusion you've arrived at from this passage then why do you follow anything in the NT?


All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
<Even if tradition could be proved, it's a useless thing since the Bible is sufficient>

Safeway is sufficient to provide groceries for my family, but I also shop at other grocery stores, which are also sufficient. The word sufficient in this verse does not mean that the OT is the only source for instruction, it means that it is acceptable or satisfactory. For me, I also like to refer to the NT.

Again, what's the point? If the Bible is all that's needed, why go beyond that? The difference is that Safeway and Walmart co-exist.
The Bible pre-existed the RCC, and you CREATED additional doctrine past what the Bible teaches.


How about for the majority of Christians who didn't know how to read?

Prove it.



You can start reading all the letters of Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Clement (who was ordained a priest by the Apostle Peter).
Peter died 67AD. Considering your first two mentions were second century, you'll have to try again. Clement is the only leg to stand on you've mentioned. And I did look up some of his writings but fail to find anything that identified Peter as more than he existed Biblically as an Apostle. So I will once again ask, what document existed during the life of Peter that identified him as the founder or first Pope of the RCC?
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
[/color]
2 Peter 3:16, the letters of the NT were considered Scripture at the time. Do you really wish to belittle the Apostles?
[/color]
Are you serious? QUOTING THE WRITTEN WORD is still THE WRITTEN WORD.


[/color][/color]
If this is the conclusion you've arrived at from this passage then why do you follow anything in the NT?


[/color][/color]
Again, what's the point? If the Bible is all that's needed, why go beyond that? The difference is that Safeway and Walmart co-exist.
The Bible pre-existed the RCC, and you CREATED additional doctrine past what the Bible teaches.


[/color][/color]
Prove it.
Peter died 67AD. Considering your first two mentions were second century, you'll have to try again. Clement is the only leg to stand on you've mentioned. And I did look up some of his writings but fail to find anything that identified Peter as more than he existed Biblically as an Apostle. So I will once again ask, what document existed during the life of Peter that identified him as the founder or first Pope of the RCC?


1. How many of Paul's letters? How do you know we got them all? What about the gospels? What about the book of Revelation? What about the Didache? The shepherd of Hermas? There was no beginning or ending to scripture back then. Also, how do you know that any of the other churches received copies of Paul's letters that were not addressed to them? You act like there was a clear idea of what was scripture and what wasn't - it is not true.


2. The gospels were written even later than Paul's letters - you are dreaming if you believe the story about Jesus being tempted was considered scripture as soon as it was told. You are acting like the early church magically knew what the complete NT was going to look like and so everything that was oral tradition, which eventually ended up in the written NT counts as the written word - fantastical, fanciful, and completely false.


3, Because the NT is the oral tradition of the Early Church - I follow sacred scripture and sacred tradition.


4. Beyond it? I would never go beyond scripture - Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all revelation. I follow sacred scripture and sacred tradition because they complement each other and point to Christ. The real question is why do you follow tradition, while denying that you do.


5. You really want me to prove that the majority of people in the early church didn't know how to read?? Unbelievable....


According to Watson, Rome managed to boost its literacy rate to 10%. The Athenians, a couple of centuries earlier, could boast only half as many literate citizens. Peter Watson (A History of Ideas, 212). That is not 10% of the church - that is the upper 10% of society. As we know, the early church was filled with people of the lower ranks.


6. You speak confidently about Peter's death in 67AD - of course that cannot be found in scripture and has to be found in sacred tradition.


7. I noticed that you simply ignored the verses I provided supporting sacred tradition as authoritative, Interested in addressing them?
 

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
Peter died 67AD. Considering your first two mentions were second century, you'll have to try again. Clement is the only leg to stand on you've mentioned. And I did look up some of his writings but fail to find anything that identified Peter as more than he existed Biblically as an Apostle. So I will once again ask, what document existed during the life of Peter that identified him as the founder or first Pope of the RCC?

Oh come one, TexUs. Learn to use the Internet. How is it possible that you could not find those writings not even from Clement? After all, that list is already accepted by the Britannica Encyclopedia and those who compiled the Almanac, and these are secular books. My brother, the first two names I mentioned are good enough. After all, we live in the 21st century, but we know that George Washington was the first President of the United States. George Washington was not from the 21st century. By the same token, those two may have lived in the second century, and they knew who was the first Bishop of Rome. So, you have the internet. You can figure it out yourself.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by OUR epistle." - Selene

-- You will note: "have learned." Meaning past tense.

You say: "St. Paul was referring to a tradition that was taught by them by their words or by their epistle, and not by anyone else. It is an "apostolic" tradition, not a tradition from the past."


So again I ask:

"You are saying that the Apostles themselves said we should pray the rosary, Mary didn't die or have additional children after Jesus, we should pray to Mary or the dead saints for intercession, said the mass LITERALLY turns bread and wine into the actually body and blood of Christ, there is a place called Purgatory, a place called Limbo, and that there should be an ongoing position of Pope and he will be infallible?

You will also note that Paul said traditions "which you have learned" putting it in the past tense. That means the traditions in place AT THAT TIME.

Care to show where ANY of the things I mentioned were practiced traditions in place AT THAT TIME?"


-- The question is simple. Where and when did the actual Apostles encourage these things?
Paul was talking about the things accepted AT THAT TIME.
Remember, he said "HAVE LEARNED."

Having spent the first 22 years of my life a Catholic I have learned that several of these practices were established/created CENTURIES after the original Apostles and Paul walked the earth and not based on anything they supported or encouraged.


-- Still waiting on a reply to this Selene.
I have laid it out here very simply. Please respond in kind.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I see that the anti-catholic page has spilled across the board.....nice
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
According to Aspen:

Questioning non-Bible supported beliefs and practices = "Anti-Catholic".........nice.
 

TexUs

New Member
Nov 18, 2010
1,197
37
0
I see that the anti-catholic page has spilled across the board.....nice
I have a feeling if Catholics weren't so contrary to the Bible, the Biblical teachings wouldn't contradict your opinions very much.
 

TexUs

New Member
Nov 18, 2010
1,197
37
0
1. How many of Paul's letters? How do you know we got them all? What about the gospels? What about the book of Revelation? What about the Didache? The shepherd of Hermas? There was no beginning or ending to scripture back then. Also, how do you know that any of the other churches received copies of Paul's letters that were not addressed to them? You act like there was a clear idea of what was scripture and what wasn't - it is not true.
You're distracting from the argument. Your argument was that we should throw out the NT when clearly both the early church and the Apostles thought some of it was Scripture. I'm not here to argue what should or should not be included, that's besides the point. My point is that your argument is flawed.

2. The gospels were written even later than Paul's letters - you are dreaming if you believe the story about Jesus being tempted was considered scripture as soon as it was told. You are acting like the early church magically knew what the complete NT was going to look like and so everything that was oral tradition, which eventually ended up in the written NT counts as the written word - fantastical, fanciful, and completely false.
Again, I'm not here to argue which books should and should not be included.
My point is that John presented the FULLNESS of the Gospel, in his ONE letter. That's all we need! Paul says Scripture is sufficient! It's all we need!

3, Because the NT is the oral tradition of the Early Church - I follow sacred scripture and sacred tradition.
There's a difference between tradition and inspiration.

4. Beyond it? I would never go beyond scripture - Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all revelation.
Claiming Mary never died isn't going beyond it?

The real question is why do you follow tradition, while denying that you do.
What church tradition do I follow?

6. You speak confidently about Peter's death in 67AD - of course that cannot be found in scripture and has to be found in sacred tradition.
It's not sacred tradition, it's historical fact.
Peter was a prominent figure and his death was written about by many. It's easily verifiable.

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.

In the previous context there's exactly zero mentions of traditions so the question is: What did Paul just address them about? Look at the prior chapter and he's urging them to flee idolatry and such. The OT talks about this topic extensively (it's tradition). So what Paul addressed to them has been tradition for hundreds of years, it's nothing new.
Additionally, drop to verse 23. This is INSPIRATION, as I said above, there's a difference between divine inspiration and tradition.

This does not speak of ORAL tradition anywhere and in fact isn't delivering anything new or groundbreaking, it's just the Lord's commentary, so to speak, on what he had already established for hundreds of years!

1 Corinthians 7:17
Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.
How's this support tradition?

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. (all traditions of the church)

"all traditions of the church", LOL... You just had to add that because the text didn't say it, eh?
"aspen's addition to the scripture" aside, how does this support tradition?


1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (Hmm....the Church is the foundation of the truth? I guess it would have made Luther happy if it said the Bible is the foundation of the truth - but it says the church - psst..not to worry, Luther - just add the word 'alone' after faith - no one can read anyway)
Nice try aspen but you purposefully snipped out the first part of this passage, I'd imagine?

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

Look at 1:1, this is also, an inspired work- once written, it's the Word of God- this is not oral tradition. You'll also find that the word "foundation" isn't in the Greek, but instead, "support" is accurate in the Greek, the ESV translated it buttress (which is the version I quoted). The NIV is quite a poor translation, I've started switching to ESV, even in day to day readings. The NIV goes beyond translation and enters the realm of interpretation.
They support the truth, they do not form the truth, they support a truth. What truth? It's the gospel of Christ that they support.

Oh come one, TexUs. Learn to use the Internet. How is it possible that you could not find those writings not even from Clement? After all, that list is already accepted by the Britannica Encyclopedia and those who compiled the Almanac, and these are secular books.
Yeah, I see the Encyclopedia say "according to church tradition"... There's no actual documents proving it. So once more, please find me a document from the time of Peter that establishes him as the Pope or founder of the RCC.

My brother, the first two names I mentioned are good enough. After all, we live in the 21st century, but we know that George Washington was the first President of the United States. George Washington was not from the 21st century. By the same token, those two may have lived in the second century, and they knew who was the first Bishop of Rome.
You seriously lacked some critical thinking here.
We have documents from the period George Washington lived that prove he was the first President. We know this is true because countless people recorded it. They were witnesses and said, "Yes, George Washington is our first President." We aren't looking back it on from TRADITION, nay, we can look at actual documents FROM THAT TIME PERIOD to know it was true.
The same cannot be said of the Papacy, you lack any documentation.
The first mentions of this are hundreds of years removed, when some guy dream the idea up in order to secure their power.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
1 Corinthians 14:26
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. (all traditions of the church)-- Aspen, your addition in parenthesis has nothing to do with the scripture. It appears you are purposefully altering what is said to support your position.
Say it isn't so! ;)



"Nice try aspen but you purposefully snipped out the first part of this passage, I'd imagine?" - Texus

-- Aspen omitting scripture to support his point? Tsk tsk tsk.
But since the part he omitted basically negates the whole "oral tradition" claim, I can see why he did.



"The real question is why do you follow tradition, while denying that you do." - Aspen

-- Obeying what is written in the Word can't really be defined as "following tradition" in the way that Catholics do.
Obeying what it says in the Bible is hardly the "follow tradition" that Catholics used to justify so many of their practices.
The very fact that it is written down in the inspired word of God validates, does it not?
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
According to Aspen:

Questioning non-Bible supported beliefs and practices = "Anti-Catholic".........nice.

The issue of women being silent in church has nothing to do with arguing against Catholicism
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Soooooo....


Nothing to say about being show that you parse or omit parts of scripture to defend your positions?

I am shocked. No, really.