Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[epostle1]

Many read the accounts of Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is not true.

A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7:8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like “your tradition,” “precepts of men,” “tradition of men,” as opposed to “word of God” or “the commandment of God” and so forth. St. Paul makes exactly the same contrast:
Colossians 2:8 (RSV) See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God's true traditions). Corrupt traditions from the Pharisees were bad; though many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus (see, e.g., Mt 23:3).

The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings (some eventually formulated as Holy Scripture; some not) were altogether good: the authentic Christian tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the apostles, and “ratified” by the Church.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages (among others):

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

St. Paul makes no distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn't regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. This is made even more clear in two other statements to Timothy:

2 Timothy 1:13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, .
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow” his oral teaching which “heard from” him, but to also pass it on to others. This is a clear picture of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine: precisely what the Catholic Church calls sacred tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.”
Sola scripturists don't like those explanations so they change the meanings.

The phrase “deposit of faith” is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42, Jude 3). The Catholic Church considers itself merely the “custodian” or “guardian” of this public revelation or “deposit” from God, because we believe that God set up His Church (Matthew 16), making St. Peter the leader, and that it has continued through history ever since. It's all God's doing, not ours. We participate in His plan by His grace and mercy.

When the first Christians went out and preached the gospel of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition. Some of it was recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most was not, and indeed could not be, for sheer volume (see John 20:30, 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition that turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn't read then anyway).

Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible, as many Protestants (and a lot of Catholics, too) casually assume.

The New Testament itself is a record of primitive, apostolic Christianity. It is a development, so to speak, of both the Old Testament and early oral Christian preaching and teaching and tradition. The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture. It was not immediately obvious to all Christians (as some foolishly assume or argue).

Many notable Church Fathers accepted books as part of Scripture which are not now so recognized (e.g., The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement). Many others didn't accept certain canonical books until very late (e.g., Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation). Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process.

In Catholicism, Scripture and tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird, two sides of a coin, or two blades of a pair of scissors.

The Church also has strong authority, so that the Catholic rule of faith consists of Scripture, tradition, and the Church. This may be conceived in a word-picture as a “three-legged stool.” If you remove any one of the legs, the stool collapses; all three are equally necessary for it to stand up.

That is Catholicism: and (in case anyone is wondering) all these notions are firmly backed up by Scripture itself, without any contradiction as regards Catholic tradition or Church dogma and doctrine.

Colossians 2:8 (RSV) See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God's true traditions). Corrupt traditions from the Pharisees were bad; though many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus (see, e.g., Mt 23:3).

The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings (some eventually formulated as Holy Scripture; some not) were altogether good: the authentic Christian tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the apostles, and “ratified” by the Church.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages (among others):

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.
Tradition is Not a Dirty Word — It's a Great Gift

 

[mjrhealth]

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.

And that is why it is not Gods word, corrupted by men his tradition his religions and his doctrines.

 

[epostle1]

Tradition: everything the Apostles learned from Jesus' words...
a mental block for sola scripturists

Only biblical illiterates would claim that authentic tradition is not the word of God.

 

[epostle1]

It doesn't matter if the Bereans searched the scriptures every 10 minutes, they didn't call it the sole rule faith, and the NT didn't yet exist. The NT was partially contained in Paul's oral preaching, get over yourself.

 

[mjrhealth]

@epostle1
And teh one who is the loudest

1Pe_5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Eze_22:25 There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof.

but God

1Ki_19:12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

The truth doesnt need to be shouted the lie does. Teh devils comes to destroy and he has many friends who are willinmg to help.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

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 . . .

It's not hatred at all but concern for such, I could give you a little advice, open you eyes and look around you and talk to people outside your little world, Christianity is failing full on, it's being abandoned by the States and the Law everywhere and the Satanic works of Socialism and their god Political Correctness is being forced on everyone full on, just remember don't speak out about PCness or they will come down on you, just like the Nazis and the communist used this tool Political Correctness to destroy Freedom of Speech and walk over the people.
I will point this fact out to any who are smug and ignorant of the reality of history and where we are being led by such Satanist.

The up and coming Priest have been brain washed and the good ones made to fail for years, all they have been pumping out is little boy priest who will not stand up to anyone.
Fact is Christianity is failing and has been so for years.
Total creep priest have got away with molester of little kids for years and it has been like pulling teeth to deal with such totally evil people, I will tell you why if you would bother to listen but I am sure you will not want to listen anyway.

Christianity has failed it's like it's on it's death bed, can't you even see that.

Idiots are calling Christianity, Judaic Christianity now for about 10 years now and it's been ramped up full on in the last 5 years, it's like now you hear Judaic Christianity mentioned all the time, now what does that truly mean ? it's not Judaic Christianity at all, it's just Christianity end of story.
Christianity is not the old and new testament, the old was a blue print for the new, the old ended 2000 years ago.
Christianity is in fact Israel however and any who reject that are of Satan.
It makes my skin crawl to hear one call it Judaic Christianity or to call them our elder brothers, BS they are, they are the ones who are lost without hope.
All this embracing of the Jews is just nonsense, they sure don't embrace Christianity at all but have been undermining it full on.

Does your Pope Frances point all this rubbish out, no the fool goes to honour their pathetic Wall they idolise, such is blasphemy.

 

[Stranger]

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"??

You know who they are though you feign ignorance. The Romanists are those who are under the authority of the Roman Church. Under the authority of the Pope of Rome. Funny how you act ignorant of the truth, and act intelligent in things that are not true.

The Bereans searched the Scriptures which were of the Old Testament as that was what Paul was using to prove that Jesus is the Christ. The Jews Old Testament contained only 39 books as it does today. It never contained more.

(Matt. 4:4, 4:7, 4:10)

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

That is not what I said. 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.
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.

When did it stop?
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.

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
Shame on me for going off topic.

That is what your said. See your post #482. So, appeal was made to the Scripture alone long before the 16th century.

Paul preaching is not the same as 'oral tradition'. It is Paul's preaching. What Paul preached, we have written down in the New Testament. The Scriptures don't cancel out Paul's preaching. They show what Paul preached. And what Paul preached, in proving Christ out of the Old Testament, the Bereans would check up on in the Old Testament. In other words, they didn't just accept his oral preaching without comparing it to the written Word.

I never said Paul wrote everything out and then read it. I said Paul preached and what he preached we have written down in his epistles in the New Testament. Paul's preaching is just that, Paul's preaching. It is not oral tradition. Your effort to say you have access to something Paul said which is not found written in Scripture, is your oral tradition. Which is to be rejected.

I do not accept your oral tradition period. And Paul's preaching is not oral traditon. Of course Paul's writings are not the 'sole' rule of faith. All of Scripture, the 66 books of Old and New Testament are the 'sole' rule of faith.

It didn't stop. The Church at Rome still acts and wants to be over the Catholic Church. Thus they have hijacked the term Catholic, which speaks to the universal Church of Jesus Christ, and applied it to themselves. This is why BreadOfLife plays dumb about the term Romanist. Rome must have control over the entire Church. 'She' must be the Catholic Church. Many have had sense enough to break away, not from the Catholic Church, but from Rome.

The Roman Church did not give us the Bible. The 39 books of the Old Testament were already in existence. The Church, the Catholic or Universal Church, not the Roman Church, recognized the inspired writings of the New Testament long before any Roman councils.

Where do you get the 'Greek Pharisee' from? The Septuagint is built upon obfuscation. (nice word) There is nothing to indicate the early Church used any 'Septuagint'. Many have bought into this, both Romanist and Protestant.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

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.

Post #482 ^ Nothing in that post says what you claim, stranger. I don't like it when you or anybody else puts words in my mouth that I never said. There is not a shred of historical evidence that anyone appealed to scripture alone before the 16th century, and you have yet to provide an example. Don't confuse material sufficiency, which is accepted by Catholics, with sole sufficiency, which is a reformist invention.

 

[mjrhealth]

Post #482 ^ Nothing in that post says what you claim, stranger. I don't like it when you or anybody else puts words in my mouth that I never said. There is not a shred of historical evidence that anyone appealed to scripture alone before the 16th century, and you have yet to provide an example. Don't confuse material sufficiency, which is accepted by Catholics, with sole sufficiency, which is a reformist invention.

Without Christ you end up with religion, just as you have, no Jesus just mens traditions, teaching rules, Nothing to do with God.

1Co_6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

But men have said that is what they have done.

 

[Stranger]

Post #482 ^ Nothing in that post says what you claim, stranger. I don't like it when you or anybody else puts words in my mouth that I never said. There is not a shred of historical evidence that anyone appealed to scripture alone before the 16th century, and you have yet to provide an example. Don't confuse material sufficiency, which is accepted by Catholics, with sole sufficiency, which is a reformist invention.

They are your words. What is not to like? (Acts 17:11) is a clear example of appealing to Scripture alone long before 16th century.

I am not confusing anything.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

........

That is what your said. See your post #482. So, appeal was made to the Scripture alone long before the 16th century.

Read it again. That is not what I said. Appeals were made to Scripture throughout history, but what happens when heretics appeal to scripture alone? If you think that hasn't happened you have some reading to do. (i.e. Arius, Nestorius, Apollinaris and every "Bible-alone" heretic in the patristic period, all appealing to "Scripture alone"

Paul preaching is not the same as 'oral tradition'.

The mode of transmission is different, but that doesn't make Tradition inferior.
The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages (among others):
1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

St. Paul makes no distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn't regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. This is made even more clear in two other statements to Timothy:

2 Timothy 1:13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, .
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow” his oral teaching which “heard from” him, but to also pass it on to others. This is a clear picture of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine: precisely what the Catholic Church calls sacred tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.”

that in post It is Paul's preaching. What Paul preached, we have written down in the New Testament. The Scriptures don't cancel out Paul's preaching. They show what Paul preached. And what Paul preached, in proving Christ out of the Old Testament, the Bereans would check up on in the Old Testament. In other words, they didn't just accept his oral preaching without comparing it to the written Word.

They didn't yet have a written word.

I never said Paul wrote everything out and then read it. I said Paul preached and what he preached we have written down in his epistles in the New Testament. Paul's preaching is just that, Paul's preaching. It is not oral tradition. Your effort to say you have access to something Paul said which is not found written in Scripture, is your oral tradition. Which is to be rejected.

Oral Tradition that is mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 3:14-15; 2 Thess 2:15, etc. does not refer to orally transmitting the message of the Bible. It refers to the Oral Tradition apart from the Written Tradition (the Bible). The Bible says no one could fit all of it in one book.

The Oral Tradition has not been corrupted and we know this for three reasons:

1) Oral Tradition and Written Tradition compliment one another and not contradict each other. But not everything is written in the Bible, according to the Bible itself (i.e. John 21:25; Acts 20:35). (THIS IS WHAT YOU SAY YOU REJECT) Thus since not everything is in the written record if Oral Tradition says something that is not explicit in the Written Tradition that does not make the Oral Tradition wrong. It only means that that subject was not mentioned in the Written Record.

Oral Tradition was a long time aspect of the religious life of the Jews. They recognized the existence of Divine Oral Tradition. There are some passages in the New Testament, for example, that refer to the Divine Revelation of the Old Testament but deal with items not in the written Old Testament. It is obvious the Apostles knew and believed in a Divine Oral Tradition.

2) The importance of Oral Tradition is great. This is seen by the fact that St. Paul tells us to listen to and obey Tradition (that is Divine Tradition, not human customs) as Scripture. He even tells us that people who do not follow this Divine Oral Tradition are to be shunned (2 Thess 3:14).

All the possible teachings of Jesus cannot possible be placed into one book as the Bible itself affirms. Also, there were no New Testament Scriptures in the early decades of the Church. All that existed was the Oral Tradition of the Apostles. Even after the letters of the New Testament began to be written and passed around it was not until the 4th century that the Church put in place exactly which letters were to be considered Scripture and which were not. How the bishops made that decision was, in part, on whether the letter in question was consistent with the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

Oral Tradition ALWAYS precedes Written Tradition. Written Tradition (the bible) is a small subset of the larger Oral Tradition. This has always been the case - in the Old Testament and in the New Testament times.

3) I proper concern is whether or not this Divine Oral Tradition is passed on from generation to generation accurately. Well, God is not so cruel that He would not account for some way to preserve His Word. His Word, after all is life. We must have a way to preserve the Word of God. God did that through a Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. God has ALWAYS had a Magisterium. In the Old Testament times we had the Chair of Moses that Jesus mentions in Matt 23:2. For the New Covenant a new chair of authority was put into place --- just as was done with the previous four covenants in Old Testament times. This new chair was and is the Chair of Peter (Matt 16, Isa 22:21-23).

But how to we check to be sure, if we do not have the faith to trust God's Magisterium? Well, the same way that we can know for sure that the Bible we read today is the what was actually written in the First Century -- by comparing what we have today with the written record of history.

In the case of the Bible, we compare what we have today with extant manuscripts from as close to the first century as possible.

In the case of the Oral Tradition, the same is true. We look to extant manuscripts of sermons, essays, Church documents, etc. from the Church Fathers that affirm that what we believe today is the same things that they believed then.

There is NO doctrine of the Catholic Church that cannot be traced to the early Church. Over the centuries our understanding of doctrine has matured from that of the infant Church, but the doctrine remains unchanged. We know this because we can prove it with documentary evidence.

When Protestants posit a theological belief that is contrary to what the Catholics believe, I ask that person to show me where any of the Church Fathers believed has he believes. If the early Christians believed as the Protestants do today there would be some evidence of this -- essays, sermons, writings of some sort. But there are none. The Catholic Church, however, can produce truckloads of extant manuscripts from the First, Second, and Third Centuries that show the foundation for ALL that the Catholic Church believes.

This evidence is overwhelming and sure. There are no other works of antiquity that we are as sure about as we are about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[epostle1]

I do not accept your oral tradition period. And Paul's preaching is not oral traditon. Of course Paul's writings are not the 'sole' rule of faith. All of Scripture, the 66 books of Old and New Testament are the 'sole' rule of faith.
It didn't stop. The Church at Rome still acts and wants to be over the Catholic Church. Thus they have hijacked the term Catholic, which speaks to the universal Church of Jesus Christ, and applied it to themselves. This is why BreadOfLife plays dumb about the term Romanist. Rome must have control over the entire Church. 'She' must be the Catholic Church. Many have had sense enough to break away, not from the Catholic Church, but from Rome.

DID YOU KNOW THAT THE TERM “ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH” ORIGINATED AS AN ANGLICAN INSULT?
The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).http://stninianskuilsriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/The-term-Roman-Catholicism1.pdf
Different variants of the “Roman” insult appeared at different times. The earliest form of the insult was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined approximately 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Then between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a late-comer term about 1815-1825-the noun “Roman Catholicism,” which is a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”

A similar complex of insults arose around the term “pope.” About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term “papist” and later its derivative “papism.” A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective “popish.” Next came “popery” (1525-1535), and then “papistry” (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, “papistical” and “papistic.” (Source: Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)[/quote]

The Roman Church did not give us the Bible. The 39 books of the Old Testament were already in existence. The Church, the Catholic or Universal Church, not the Roman Church, recognized the inspired writings of the New Testament long before any Roman councils.

History does not recognize a "Roman Church" but for Anglican insults. Tell me how many Protestants were present at the Council of Carthage. History recognizes that. You need to stop re-defining "Tradition". It really is a sore mental block.

Where do you get the 'Greek Pharisee' from? The Septuagint is built upon obfuscation. (nice word) There is nothing to indicate the early Church used any 'Septuagint'. Many have bought into this, both Romanist and Protestant.

Where was Paul when he met up with the Bereans? In Macedonia, which is in Greece. The Bereans were Greeks.
Septuagint - the History of the Early Church - Early ...

• earlychurch.com/septuagint.php
  Early Church History - the History of the Early Church.
  The Bible of the Early Church

• theorthodoxfaith.com/article/the-bible-of-the-early-church
  There are hundreds of these differences that don’t make a lot of sense till you read them from the Septuagint. This new form of the Hebrew canon was accepted widely ...
  Septuagint - Wikipedia

• Septuagint - Wikipedia
  In the Early Christian Church, the presumption that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before the era of Christ, ...
  • The Septuagint in the Life of the Early Church - Word …

• https://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/content/pdfs/26-4_Biblical... · PDF file
  The Septuagint in the Life of the Early Church LOIS FARAG he Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that was widely used by writers of the ...
  Here’s Something about the Bible of the First Christians I ...

• www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/07/heres-something-about-the...
  Another reason “translation of the Old Testament” is imprecise is that early on “Septuagint ... Bible of the early Church, ... Peter Enns and is ...
  Should We Use the Septuagint and Accept Its …

• Should We Use the Septuagint and Accept Its Canonical Books?
  A practical look at the Septuagint. Should we use the LXX as our Old Testament? A look at its NT usage, early church usage, and the way the apostles used Scripture.
  The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint ...

• www.amazon.com › … › Bible Study & Reference
  In depth treatment of the early Church and the Septuagint and later pressure to adopt

Well, if the KJV is good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for me...

They are your words. What is not to like? (Acts 17:11) is a clear example of appealing to Scripture alone long before 16th century.

A clear example? I've been over this already. Acts 17:11-12 – here we see the verse “they searched the Scriptures.” This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what you are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God’s word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean’s use of sola scriptura.
Acts 17:11-12 – Also, the Bereans, being more “noble” or “fair minded,” meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

I am not confusing anything.

Stranger

You made reference to my alleged words TWICE without using the quote feature, I'll not get caught up in your infantile squabbling.
Many bishops and popes have appealed to scripture, but not in the absence of Tradition.

 

[Stranger]

........
Read it again. That is not what I said. Appeals were made to Scripture throughout history, but what happens when heretics appeal to scripture alone? If you think that hasn't happened you have some reading to do. (i.e. Arius, Nestorius, Apollinaris and every "Bible-alone" heretic in the patristic period, all appealing to "Scripture alone"

The mode of transmission is different, but that doesn't make Tradition inferior.
The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages (among others):
1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

St. Paul makes no distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn't regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. This is made even more clear in two other statements to Timothy:

2 Timothy 1:13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, .
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow” his oral teaching which “heard from” him, but to also pass it on to others. This is a clear picture of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine: precisely what the Catholic Church calls sacred tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.”
They didn't yet have a written word.


Oral Tradition that is mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 3:14-15; 2 Thess 2:15, etc. does not refer to orally transmitting the message of the Bible. It refers to the Oral Tradition apart from the Written Tradition (the Bible). The Bible says no one could fit all of it in one book.

The Oral Tradition has not been corrupted and we know this for three reasons:

1) Oral Tradition and Written Tradition compliment one another and not contradict each other. But not everything is written in the Bible, according to the Bible itself (i.e. John 21:25; Acts 20:35). (THIS IS WHAT YOU SAY YOU REJECT) Thus since not everything is in the written record if Oral Tradition says something that is not explicit in the Written Tradition that does not make the Oral Tradition wrong. It only means that that subject was not mentioned in the Written Record.

Oral Tradition was a long time aspect of the religious life of the Jews. They recognized the existence of Divine Oral Tradition. There are some passages in the New Testament, for example, that refer to the Divine Revelation of the Old Testament but deal with items not in the written Old Testament. It is obvious the Apostles knew and believed in a Divine Oral Tradition.

2) The importance of Oral Tradition is great. This is seen by the fact that St. Paul tells us to listen to and obey Tradition (that is Divine Tradition, not human customs) as Scripture. He even tells us that people who do not follow this Divine Oral Tradition are to be shunned (2 Thess 3:14).

All the possible teachings of Jesus cannot possible be placed into one book as the Bible itself affirms. Also, there were no New Testament Scriptures in the early decades of the Church. All that existed was the Oral Tradition of the Apostles. Even after the letters of the New Testament began to be written and passed around it was not until the 4th century that the Church put in place exactly which letters were to be considered Scripture and which were not. How the bishops made that decision was, in part, on whether the letter in question was consistent with the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

Oral Tradition ALWAYS precedes Written Tradition. Written Tradition (the bible) is a small subset of the larger Oral Tradition. This has always been the case - in the Old Testament and in the New Testament times.

3) I proper concern is whether or not this Divine Oral Tradition is passed on from generation to generation accurately. Well, God is not so cruel that He would not account for some way to preserve His Word. His Word, after all is life. We must have a way to preserve the Word of God. God did that through a Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. God has ALWAYS had a Magisterium. In the Old Testament times we had the Chair of Moses that Jesus mentions in Matt 23:2. For the New Covenant a new chair of authority was put into place --- just as was done with the previous four covenants in Old Testament times. This new chair was and is the Chair of Peter (Matt 16, Isa 22:21-23).

But how to we check to be sure, if we do not have the faith to trust God's Magisterium? Well, the same way that we can know for sure that the Bible we read today is the what was actually written in the First Century -- by comparing what we have today with the written record of history.

In the case of the Bible, we compare what we have today with extant manuscripts from as close to the first century as possible.

In the case of the Oral Tradition, the same is true. We look to extant manuscripts of sermons, essays, Church documents, etc. from the Church Fathers that affirm that what we believe today is the same things that they believed then.

There is NO doctrine of the Catholic Church that cannot be traced to the early Church. Over the centuries our understanding of doctrine has matured from that of the infant Church, but the doctrine remains unchanged. We know this because we can prove it with documentary evidence.

When Protestants posit a theological belief that is contrary to what the Catholics believe, I ask that person to show me where any of the Church Fathers believed has he believes. If the early Christians believed as the Protestants do today there would be some evidence of this -- essays, sermons, writings of some sort. But there are none. The Catholic Church, however, can produce truckloads of extant manuscripts from the First, Second, and Third Centuries that show the foundation for ALL that the Catholic Church believes.

This evidence is overwhelming and sure. There are no other works of antiquity that we are as sure about as we are about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

You read it again. That is what you said.

If appeals are made to Scripture, and not made to any oral tradition, or anything else, then appeals are made to Scripture alone. And that is what is being made in (Acts 17:11).

Oral tradition is always inferior. (John 21:22-23) "Jesus saith unto him, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciples should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

See how oral tradition becomes distorted almost immediately. Scripture has warned us.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

DID YOU KNOW THAT THE TERM “ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH” ORIGINATED AS AN ANGLICAN INSULT?

"It had taken around six hundred years for the papacy, after countless setbacks and defeats, to shape a Roman Catholic Church, for which the foundations were laid by Augustine and the Roman bishops in the fifth century, and in so doing to realize the program developed by Leo I and Gelasius. The aim of this program was sole rule by the pope in the church and the world, allegedly established by the apostle Peter, indeed by Jesus Christ. The church was now Roman through and through. The Roman church was to be understood as mother and head of all the churches, and to her obedience was due....obedience to God must be obedience to the church, and obedience to the church obedience to the pope. " ( The Catholic Church, Hans Kung, The Modern Library, 2003, p.84-85)

"For centuries Rome blocked any reform, and now it got the Reformation, which quickly developed a tremendous religious, political, and social dynamism. For Rome, which had already lost the East, this was a second catastrophe, which cost it virtually all the northern half of its Roman empire. And with the loss of unity, of course, the catholicity of this church was also put in question.....one could not now overlook the fact that the all-embracing Catholic Church was no longer the same as it was before the split and that with its unity, its catholicity,...seemed to be broken. Soon even Catholics would call their church the Roman Catholic Church, without noting that the qualification 'Roman' fundamentally denied the 'Catholic'; a true oxymoron." (Kung, p. 120-121)

As I said, both Protestants and Romanists have bought into the Septuagint scam. It is based on myth alone, like being based on 'oral tradition'.

Again, Pauls preaching was not oral tradition. His preaching was based on the Old Testament Scriptures and the revelation Jesus Christ gave him. The Bereans did not accept any oral tradition from Paul. They checked what he was saying with the Scriptures. If I were to preach this Sunday in a church I visit and base my sermon on the Bible, that is not oral tradition. And when the people of that church check the Scriptures to make sure I am right, that is not them accepting any oral tradition. The same is true with Paul. It is only oral tradition in the Romanists hands. Because he needs something else outside of Scripture. Because Scripture alone is against him.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

You know who they are though you feign ignorance. The Romanists are those who are under the authority of the Roman Church. Under the authority of the Pope of Rome. Funny how you act ignorant of the truth, and act intelligent in things that are not true.
The Bereans searched the Scriptures which were of the Old Testament as that was what Paul was using to prove that Jesus is the Christ. The Jews Old Testament contained only 39 books as it does today. It never contained more.
(Matt. 4:4, 4:7, 4:10)Stranger

THANK YOU for exposing your abject ignorance of history . . .

Not only was the Jewish Canon and OPEN canon during life of Jesus and the New Testament writers - it contained 46 Books.
Not only do we see these Books in the Septuagint (Greek translation) - we see about 200 references from the Septuagint in the New Testament.
Ohhh- and these Books are quoted in the Babylonian Talmud.

Whereas Catholics adhere to the 46 Book OT - like Jesus did - you Protestants accept the POST-Christ, POST-Temple whittled-down version that a non-binding Jewish rabbinical school decided on decades later.

SO - if the Bereans were searching the Scriptures about what Paul taught them - Protestants today, CAN'T be like them because you have revmoved a good chunk of those Scriptures . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

It's not hatred at all but concern for such, I could give you a little advice, open you eyes and look around you and talk to people outside your little world, Christianity is failing full on, it's being abandoned by the States and the Law everywhere and the Satanic works of Socialism and their god Political Correctness is being forced on everyone full on, just remember don't speak out about PCness or they will come down on you, just like the Nazis and the communist used this tool Political Correctness to destroy Freedom of Speech and walk over the people.
I will point this fact out to any who are smug and ignorant of the reality of history and where we are being led by such Satanist.
The up and coming Priest have been brain washed and the good ones made to fail for years, all they have been pumping out is little boy priest who will not stand up to anyone.
Fact is Christianity is failing and has been so for years.
Total creep priest have got away with molester of little kids for years and it has been like pulling teeth to deal with such totally evil people, I will tell you why if you would bother to listen but I am sure you will not want to listen anyway.
Christianity has failed it's like it's on it's death bed, can't you even see that.
Idiots are calling Christianity, Judaic Christianity now for about 10 years now and it's been ramped up full on in the last 5 years, it's like now you hear Judaic Christianity mentioned all the time, now what does that truly mean ? it's not Judaic Christianity at all, it's just Christianity end of story.
Christianity is not the old and new testament, the old was a blue print for the new, the old ended 2000 years ago.
Christianity is in fact Israel however and any who reject that are of Satan.
It makes my skin crawl to hear one call it Judaic Christianity or to call them our elder brothers, BS they are, they are the ones who are lost without hope.
All this embracing of the Jews is just nonsense, they sure don't embrace Christianity at all but have been undermining it full on.
Does your Pope Frances point all this rubbish out, no the fool goes to honour their pathetic Wall they idolise, such is blasphemy.

No - it's hatred - or you wouldn't be making all of these stupid and unsubstantiated attacks.
Only hatred and/or ignorance makes people lie - so take your pick . . .

Oh, and it might interest you to know that there are MORE pedophiles among the Protestant sects that in the Catholic Church.
Sooo - before you go around pointing fingers - clean up your OWN back yard . . .

Evangelicals 'worse' than Catholics on sexual abuse | The Christian ...

Billy Graham's Grandson Says Protestants Abuse Kids Just Like Catholics

Data Shed Light on Child Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy - The ...

Protestants can no longer dismiss abuse as a 'Catholic problem ...

There is More Sexual Abuse in The Protestant Churches Than ...

Protestant Churches Grapple With Growing Sexual Abuse Crisis : NPR

 

[epostle1]

"It had taken around six hundred years for the papacy, after countless setbacks and defeats, to shape a Roman Catholic Church, for which the foundations were laid by Augustine and the Roman bishops in the fifth century, and in so doing to realize the program developed by Leo I and Gelasius. The aim of this program was sole rule by the pope in the church and the world, allegedly established by the apostle Peter, indeed by Jesus Christ. The church was now Roman through and through. The Roman church was to be understood as mother and head of all the churches, and to her obedience was due....obedience to God must be obedience to the church, and obedience to the church obedience to the pope. " ( The Catholic Church, Hans Kung, The Modern Library, 2003, p.84-85)

"For centuries Rome blocked any reform, and now it got the Reformation, which quickly developed a tremendous religious, political, and social dynamism. For Rome, which had already lost the East, this was a second catastrophe, which cost it virtually all the northern half of its Roman empire. And with the loss of unity, of course, the catholicity of this church was also put in question.....one could not now overlook the fact that the all-embracing Catholic Church was no longer the same as it was before the split and that with its unity, its catholicity,...seemed to be broken. Soon even Catholics would call their church the Roman Catholic Church, without noting that the qualification 'Roman' fundamentally denied the 'Catholic'; a true oxymoron." (Kung, p. 120-121)

As I said, both Protestants and Romanists have bought into the Septuagint scam. It is based on myth alone, like being based on 'oral tradition'.

Again, Pauls preaching was not oral tradition. His preaching was based on the Old Testament Scriptures and the revelation Jesus Christ gave him. The Bereans did not accept any oral tradition from Paul. They checked what he was saying with the Scriptures. If I were to preach this Sunday in a church I visit and base my sermon on the Bible, that is not oral tradition. And when the people of that church check the Scriptures to make sure I am right, that is not them accepting any oral tradition. The same is true with Paul. It is only oral tradition in the Romanists hands. Because he needs something else outside of Scripture. Because Scripture alone is against him.

Stranger

Maybe if you would stop redefining Tradition, we might get somewhere. You are way off. You also keep ignoring development of doctrine.
One might loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity is fundamentally grounded in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (His incarnation, preaching, miracles, passion, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension).

Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2; Acts 1:1-3; 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the early Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church's authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable, and is a very good thing: not a “bad” thing at all. Tradition is Not a Dirty Word — It's a Great Gift

But your mental block remains.

It's obvious you have no understanding of development of doctrine, and no understanding of the foundation of the Church, just what you have read of false histories, and have no clue what "obedience to the Pope" means, just the superficial nonsense from fundamentalists and a quote from a dissident theologian.

Another definition from the catechism that's invisible to you:
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38 Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Transmission of Divine Revelation
(yet you still abuse the term "Tradition" because it's a man made tradition to do so.)

 

[epostle1]

An Introduction to Development of Doctrine

(8-30-06)

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE

Development is how Catholics try to explain away their doctrinal novelties

Christian doctrine was given once and for all, completely developed, by Jesus Christ

Initial reply

Development of doctrine is common to all kinds of Christians; it happened in history with regard to doctrines agreed upon by all, and it is also seen in the Bible.

Extensive reply

The Catholic Church holds that there was one apostolic deposit, given by Jesus Christ to the apostles, and that there has been no essential change in that. The Catholic Church preserves this apostolic deposit (Jude 3), and is the Guardian of it. But, on the other hand, there is a growth in clarity of those truths, and men's understanding increases. One must keep this distinction in mind when discussing development.

Protestants believe in progressive revelation. Reading Genesis is a lot different from reading, say, John or Colossians. It is obvious that great development of the thought and the theology occurs. As an example, one could analyze the idea of faith or salvation. First, the Bible presents the Abrahamic Covenant, which is basically Abraham believing in God, and this being "reckoned unto him righteousness." A little later on, we see the notion of the chosen people, which is somewhat like election, or enabling grace from God. In other words, it's unmerited. God chose them and gave them grace for His purposes. The Law and the commandments were given to preserve this people.

Then God reveals the eternal Davidic Covenant to David, and we slowly see in the Bible a notion of the Messiah, and in Isaiah 53, the "suffering servant" - which predicted Jesus' Passion. This is all development of doctrine: all the way through the Old Testament, to the gospel being announced, with John the Baptist and Jesus Himself, and even then Jesus said that He came not to "abolish" the Law but to "fulfil" it (Matt. 5:17).

In the Christian era, doctrines continue to develop. The Church especially pondered more deeply the doctrine of Christ in response to heretics; for example, at the council of Chalcedon in 451, which decreed the notion of the Two Natures of Christ or Hypostatic Union: Jesus is both God and Man. That was in response to the Monophysite heresy, which held that Jesus had one nature. Other doctrines which clearly developed were the afterlife, the Holy Spirit, the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, Christ's sacrifice as a development of the sacrifice of lambs, etc. No doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

Objection

Granted, some doctrines have developed. But Catholics go beyond the Bible when they develop doctrines, such as Mary and purgatory. There is no biblical check on the development, so that it can go off into false teaching and the traditions of men.

Reply to Objection

There is more evidence for acceptance of the doctrine of purgatory in the Church fathers than for original sin (accepted by all Christians). One cannot have it both ways. If purgatory is unacceptable because it developed "late," then original sin must be rejected with it. Catholics can give plenty of biblical evidences of purgatory. At the time the Marian doctrines were developing, so were things like the canon of Scripture and Christology and the Trinity. If those things could develop many centuries after Christ, why is it objectionable for the Marian doctrines or eucharistic theology to also do so? The Church decided what was a true development and what wasn't.

The Bible indicates something like development of doctrine, too (Jn. 14:26, 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:9-16; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10; 4:12-16). The Church is called the "Body of Christ" (e.g., Eph. 1:22-23), and is compared to a seed that grows into a tree (Matt. 13:31-32). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. This is development of doctrine.
Philip Schaff (Protestant Church historian):

Within the limits of the Jewish theocracy and Catholic Christianity Augustin admits the idea of historical development or a gradual progress from a lower to higher grades of knowledge, yet always in harmony with Catholic truth. He would not allow revolutions and radical changes or different types of Christianity.

(Intro0duction to St. Augustine's City of God, in the 38-volume set of the Church fathers, edited by himself, December 10, 1886)
C. S. Lewis (Anglican apologist):

"How can an unchanging system survive the continual increase of knowledge? . . . Change is not progress unless the core remains unchanged. A small oak grows into a big oak; if it became a beech, that would not be growth, but mere change . . . There is a great difference between counting apples and arriving at the mathematical formulae of modern physics. But the multiplication table is used in both and does not grow out of date. In other words, whenever there is real progress in knowledge, there is some knowledge that is not superseded. Indeed, the very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . I take it we should all agree to find this . . . in the simple rules of mathematics. I would also add to these the primary principles of morality. And I would 00also add the fundamental doctrines of Christianity . . . I claim that the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power, elsewhere found chiefly in formal principles, of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them . . . Like mathematics, religion can grow from within, or decay . . . But, like mathematics, it remains simply itself, capable of being applied to any new theory."
http://www.patheos.com/…/development-of-doctrine-corruption…

"Overview of Development of Doctrine (Transcript of a Television Interview)" [5-1-99]

Dave Armstrong
(God in the Dock, edited by Walter Hooper, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970, 44-47. From "Dogma and the Universe," The Guardian, March 19, 1943, 96 / March 26, 1943, 104, 107)
Further introductory materials on development:

"Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?" [1995]

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

No - it's hatred - or you wouldn't be making all of these stupid and unsubstantiated attacks.
Only hatred and/or ignorance makes people lie - so take your pick . . .

Oh, and it might interest you to know that there are MORE pedophiles among the Protestant sects that in the Catholic Church.
Sooo - before you go around pointing fingers - clean up your OWN back yard . . .

Evangelicals 'worse' than Catholics on sexual abuse | The Christian ...

Billy Graham's Grandson Says Protestants Abuse Kids Just Like Catholics

Data Shed Light on Child Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy - The ...

Protestants can no longer dismiss abuse as a 'Catholic problem ...

There is More Sexual Abuse in The Protestant Churches Than ...

Protestant Churches Grapple With Growing Sexual Abuse Crisis : NPR

Sorry bro but I am not a protestant and I think I was on about Pope Frances, it's not hatred at all but exposing the fact that at the end of the day all this child molester filth just does not sit well with me, as it has been covered up for years and it has been like pulling teeth to try to deal with all this rot.
The facts of it all as I see it, regardless of denomination is that it has been covered up and that all have turned a blind eye to it all and now that it has been exposed with all the trials, still one major thing I will point out is that all of this has missed the mark, fact is that many in power knew what was going on and that it still will go on, it has not solved anything truly at all, but the cunning has only got much smarter as in how to deal with such.

I will give you an example what was of our principle of my children's RC school, it would do anything to up hold the schools reputation and it would come down on anyone with total vengeance who had a complaint, they are that well trained in dealing with any case put forward.
I have pointed out that if anyone was to make a complaint, make sure you are very well informed, do not go to the school or the police or lawyers first, because they are all corrupted and will only work against you, because so many are Satanist.
I pointed out that you best need go to an organisation that deals with such only and knows how to go about dealing with such in depth and are fully dedicated in dealing with such first, or you will not have a leg to stand on and it will be like hell to deal with. if such an organisation has one to be with you when dealing with any school, police, lawyer is best.
I have been on the Grand Jury in such cases and fact is you have got bugger all hope of convicting them and the Law has got only more power in favour of the case of the molester nowadays by far.
I have seen people with a list as long as your arm with people who have taken them to court with such cases and got off every time.

What makes people lie ? well to save face and many other things I am sure.

I try to clean up my own back yard, I am a political party member and involved in my community and talk to more people than you could poke a stick at and I know what's going on.

Did I bag Pope JP 2 or Pope Ben, no !

Sad to say that you come across as such a one that just will dismiss anything that you don't want to hear.

Yes how many people just put their head in the sand when they are informed in anyway, oh do you have the proof ? well bro did all of them kids who were molested have the proof ?
I wonder what the response was when them kids came to tell what happened only to be told, you are a hater and that your are making stupid unsubstantiated attacks, or would they of said words to the effect like your ignorant and that hatred proves you lie and don't go around pointing your finger at others.