Bible alone

[atpollard]

St. Jerome’s thoughts on the deuterocanon in his Vulgate

… are crystal clear.

You are “persona non grata” to me and I will not waste time reading your posts or responding to your points. Enjoy your alternate reality without me.

 

[atpollard]

So - if sitting in a fancy chair is the mark of "self-worship" - then the following world leaders, by YOUR standard s- are "Worshipping"" themselves??
What a crock . . .

View attachment 24360

View attachment 24361

The top photo is a photoshop fantasy. (That is the throne from Game of Thrones)
Was the photo of the Pope a photoshop fantasy? (Some that I have seen are)

What does it say that you refute accusations of self aggrandizement with photoshop lies?

 

[BreadOfLife]

My “ignorance” of all things Catholic stems from the Catechism for Inquirers (the publication and the class) and that portion of your PONDEROUS Catechism that I have read. The “contradiction” exists if one accepts the words on the page at face value without placing equal value on the Traditions that claim the Scripture means the opposite of what the words say.

• [Matthew 12:47] Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
  
• [Mark 3:32] A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You."
  
• [Luke 8:20] And it was reported to Him, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You."

Three classic examples … this invisible and unprovable tradition tells me that THREE DIFFERENT AUTHORS said “mother and brothers” when they really meant “not-brothers”. (Assuming one subscribes to the ‘brother means cousin’ myth rather than the ‘Joseph had a previous wife and sons’ myth … neither of which Luke, who recorded the details, thought a detail worth mentioning.)

So a more accurate statement is: There's not a single Catholic teaching that contradicts Catholic reinterpretation of Scripture.

Thgs is a TEXTBOOK example of why I referred to you as "ignorant".

The NT is 2000 years old - yet MOST Protestants today bel,ieve that Mary had other children is an idea that is younger than your Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. MOST of your Protestant Fathers believed that Mary's ONLY child was Jesus. This is based NOT only on the fact that Scripture is SILENT about Mary having "other" children - but on the testimony of Oral Tradition.
Time for a Bible Lesson . . .

Scripture doesn't say that Mary had other children.
It simply refers to the "Adelphoi" of Jesus.

Adelphos is applied to brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), uncle, cousin, step-sibling, kinsfolk, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman.
These are the statistics of the use of Adelphois(oi) in all of its variations in the New Testament:
There are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

In the Septuagint, we see MANY different meanings of “Adelphos”:
- In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "ADELPHOS", even though he was Abraham’s NEPHEW (Gen. 11:26–28).
- In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "ADELPHOS" of his UNCLE Laban.
- Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "ADELPHOI", the sons of Kish - who were actually their COUSINS (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

As for the verses that give NAMES to some of these "adelphoi" - I've got MORE bad new for you . . .
What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross - and their children?

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome."

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."

When you compare the different accounts of the Crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. The mother of these men is Mary's Adelphe, who is ALSO named "Mary".
Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are SQUASHED by the Bible.

YOUR tuen . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The top photo is a photoshop fantasy. (That is the throne from Game of Thrones)
Was the photo of the Pope a photoshop fantasy? (Some that I have seen are)

What does it say that you refute accusations of self aggrandizement with photoshop lies?

Ummmm, in the depths of your ignorance - you misseed the point again.

First of all - there are other photos.
Secondly - to claim that simply because a man sits in a fancy chair and is flanked by 4 people - this does NOT make him the Anti-Christ, asccording to some bizarrem home-made parchwork of Bible verses.
I can make a stronger case for Obama being the Anti-Christ - but that is for another thread . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

… are crystal clear.

You are “persona non grata” to me and I will not waste time reading your posts or responding to your points. Enjoy your alternate reality without me.

What a cowardly and pride-filled post.

This is a PERFECT example of Sppiritual Pride and total dishonesty.
You refuse to accept the historical truth about St. Jerome because the anti-Catholic LIE suits you better.

"You SHALL NOT bear FALSE witness against your neighbor."
- GOD, Exod. 20:216

 

[atpollard]

YOUR turn . . .

You addressed NONE of the verses that I quoted that all claimed that Jesus had “brothers”. You do know where “brothers” come from, right? So are these other children by the same father (God) or other children by the same mother (Mary)?

Instead to tap danced about TRADITION and why the Bible doesn’t mean what it says.
I was already forced to choose between:

• embrace tradition and rejection scripture
• embrace scripture and rejection tradition

I chose to embrace scripture and I leave you to your scripture denying tradition.

 

[atpollard]

Ummmm, in the depths of your ignorance - you misseed the point again.

First of all - there are other photos.
Secondly - to claim that simply because a man sits in a fancy chair and is flanked by 4 people - this does NOT make him the Anti-Christ, asccording to some bizarrem home-made parchwork of Bible verses.
I can make a stronger case for Obama being the Anti-Christ - but that is for another thread . . .

Show me from scripture where there is any “the Anti-Christ”?
Then we will see who is the ignorant one here.
(Hint … it is never used as a proper name in the Bible.)

You have still resorted to photoshopped lies to support your case and are unapologetic about it.

 

[atpollard]

What a cowardly and pride-filled post.

This is a PERFECT example of Sppiritual Pride and total dishonesty.
You refuse to accept the historical truth about St. Jerome because the anti-Catholic LIE suits you better.

"You SHALL NOT bear FALSE witness against your neighbor."
- GOD, Exod. 20:216

Are you two sock-puppets for one person?
Why do you take offense that I do not wish to argue with him?

I have read Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, so I know what Jerome wrote. Arguing with other idiots like you has forced me to read many of Jerome’s letters as well (even though I do not care about any of the Historic theologians, I care about what the Apostles wrote that was included in the 66 books of the Bible sans apocrypha). Jerome was unambiguous in his translation of the LXX which books he viewed as Inspired Scripture and which books were apocryphal (not inspired scripture). For you to claim otherwise makes YOU the liar and an anti-Christ (sowing tares among the wheat of the word of God).

 

[Taken]

There's not a SINGLE Catholic teaching that "contraducts" Scripture.


First of all - I haven't engaged iin "FALSE" accusations of anybody.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You addressed NONE of the verses that I quoted that all claimed that Jesus had “brothers”. You do know where “brothers” come from, right? So are these other children by the same father (God) or other children by the same mother (Mary)?

Instead to tap danced about TRADITION and why the Bible doesn’t mean what it says.
I was already forced to choose between:

• embrace tradition and rejection scripture
• embrace scripture and rejection tradition

I chose to embrace scripture and I leave you to your scripture denying tradition.

That's because NONE of them are shown to be the chilfren of Mary, mother of Jesus.
Here are all of the verses in the Gospels:
Matt. 12:46, Matt. 13:55, Mark 3:31–34, Mark 6:3, Luke 8:19–20, John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10

Not ONE SINGLE verste states that they are children of Jesus's Mother.
I already showed you the BIBLICAL statistics on the use of the word "ADELPHOS" in the NT:
of the 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT -
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" CANNOT or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

Your response is the most pathetic argument I've ever heard. I gave you VOLUMES of Scriptura and liinguistic evidence in post #543 - and , "I don't think so!" is the BEST response you can come up with??
It's WORSE than pathetic - it's downright STUPID.

ANYBODY reading knows that this argument is over and YOU nee to do your homework.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Show me from scripture where there is any “the Anti-Christ”?
Then we will see who is the ignorant one here.
(Hint … it is never used as a proper name in the Bible.)

You have still resorted to photoshopped lies to support your case and are unapologetic about it.

And yet - I'm NOY yhr one who brought up the issue of the Anti-Christ, did I??
Go back anc READ the posts, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Are you two sock-puppets for one person?
Why do you take offense that I do not wish to argue with him?

I have read Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, so I know what Jerome wrote. Arguing with other idiots like you has forced me to read many of Jerome’s letters as well (even though I do not care about any of the Historic theologians, I care about what the Apostles wrote that was included in the 66 books of the Bible sans apocrypha).

And that's PAINFULLY-obvious, my historically and Scripturally-BANKRUPT friend.

The Early Church Fathers are the ones who guarded and passed down the Scripture to YOU, Einstein.
Wuthout them and the Holy Spirit to guide them (John 16:12015) - the Books of the Bible would be LOST . . .

Jerome was unambiguous in his translation of the LXX which books he viewed as Inspired Scripture and which books were apocryphal (not inspired scripture). For you to claim otherwise makes YOU the liar and an anti-Christ (sowing tares among the wheat of the word of God).

That's a LIE - you you know it is, because BOT @Illuminator and I gave you quotes from Jerome explaining the entire reason behind hiss initial distrust of the Deuterocanonical Books - and his eventual ACCEPTANCE pf them as "Sacred Scripture."

The really pathetic p[art isd that YOU trgrt to those Books SOLELY on the woed of the FALSE Prophet, Rabbi Akiva who declared a FALSE Christ, Simon Simon Bar Kokhba in the early 2nd century. In case you forgot - go BACK to the Lesson I taught you from history in post #535, where I explained ALL of this.

So, when GOD asks you WHY you rejected His Sacred Word - you can tell Him:
"Akiva made Luther do it - and Luther made ME do it."

I'm sure He'll be really pleased with that answer . . .

 

[Illuminator]

So a more accurate statement is: There's not a single Catholic teaching that contradicts Catholic reinterpretation of Scripture.

So a more accurate statement is: There's not a single atpollard teaching that contradicts atpollard's modernist reinterpretation of Scripture.

… are crystal clear.
You are “persona non grata” to me and I will not waste time reading your posts or responding to your points. Enjoy your alternate reality without me.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute the facts about St. Jerome so I'll have a temper tantrum instead.

You addressed NONE of the verses that I quoted that all claimed that Jesus had “brothers”. You do know where “brothers” come from, right? So are these other children by the same father (God) or other children by the same mother (Mary)?

St. Jerome put the heretic Helvidius in his place, maybe that's why you don't like Jerome.
In 382 he went to Rome with Epiphanius to attend a council convened to address the schism raging in Antioch. He remained there as secretary to Pope Damasus, at whose request he revised the Latin gospels, Paul’s letters, and the psalms. Noteworthy for modern apologists is his Adversus Helvidium, which attacked Helvidius for claiming Mary had several children besides Jesus. Jerome claimed that Helvidius’s position (which matches the position of today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists) was a novelty unknown to earlier generations of Christians.

"...Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned."​

John Calvin
Furthermore, Jesus' biological brothers was a novelty unknown to earlier generations of Protestants before the cancer of 18th century Modernism crept in.

Instead to tap danced about TRADITION and why the Bible doesn’t mean what it says.
I was already forced to choose between:

• embrace tradition and rejection scripture
• embrace scripture and rejection tradition

I chose to embrace scripture and I leave you to your scripture denying tradition.

No, you embrace a false dichotomy that pits tradition against scripture. The Bible doesn't do that.
1 Corinthians 11:2 (RSV) Maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all use “tradition"

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, 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 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed by “word of mouth.” Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30; John 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. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.
Tradition Isn't a Dirty Word - The Coming Home Network

 

[atpollard]

@BreadOfLife

I grow weary of your personally abusive tone.
Goodbye.

 

[Taken]

...the fact that Scripture is SILENT about Mary having "other" children - but on the testimony of Oral Tradition.

Scripture doesn't say that Mary had other children.

Scripture doesn’t say; that Mary DID NOT have other children.
Scripture doesn’t say; that Mary DID NOT submit to her husband.
Scripture doesn’t say; that Mary REMAINED a virgin.
Scripture doesn’t say; that Mary herself was naturally born without sin.
Scripture doesn’t say; to Pray TO Mary.
Scripture doesn’t say; to Erect statues of Mary and bow down to them.
Scripture doesn’t say; Mary is the mother of God.
Scripture doesn’t say; Gentile man-made Doctrines are profitable.

Yet that IS the philosophical and deceitful man-made traditions and teaching of Gentile Catholics.

Scripture DOES SAY it is noble to Verify what one hears WITH Scripture.

Scripture DOES SAY Scripture IS is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Scripture DOES SAY BEWARE of philosophical and vain deceitful of traditions of men.

Scripture DOES SAY Mary was a humble servant.
Scripture DOES SAY Joseph Took Mary as his Wife.
Scripture DOES SAY Joseph Agreed to WAIT ‘TILL After Mary Delivered the babe, to have intercourse with his wife Mary.

Men Being BEWARE of philosophical, vain, deceitful, man-made traditions and doctrines IS Scriptural.

You and your teachings are on notice to BEWARE.

 

[Taken]

@BreadOfLife

I grow weary of your personally abusive tone.
Goodbye.

Yep agree.

The VANITY is glaringly overwhelming.
Re-defining Scripture.
Re-defining what others say.
Ask a question, answer the question for you, then disagree. LOL

* It’s a repetitive routine of a gaslighting method that hangs in between deceit, pathetic, laughable and sad.

 

[n2thelight]

What does catholic traditions give you that scripture does not ?

 

[Brakelite]

NO, it doesn't - and YOU should knpoe better because we've discussed this before.
But, just like your goddes/founder, Ellen White - you perpetuate this filth out of pure hate, not ignorance.
If it was only a matter of ignorance - your woundn't be guilty (John 9:41).

FIRST of all, so that you are exposed before everybosy here - taking four phrases from from different places in Scripture and patchworking them together to create soome ominous warning is not only sinful - it BLASPHEMOUS. You're misrepresenting God by taking takiing unrelated verses from His Word and gluing them together to make ONE message.

And, although your disgusting hatred is rooted in ignorance - it doesn't stop there,
There picture you posted is of a MASS being celebrated, as I told you before. You conveniently LEFT OIT the rest of the picture.

The other Bisops in the picture are concelebrants. On special occassions, a mass may include SEVERAL priests who are celebrating the Liturgy. there is ONE Celebrante and multiple CONcelebrants. If you've ever been to an Ordination - you can literally have HUNDREDS of priests taking part.

You're a dishonest person and yoiur SDA cult survives on the LIES it feeds on.
If you hate the Catholic Church - that's fine with me. But if you need to resort to lying to get your point across - try explaining that to God when Hew is judging you . . .

Exod. 20:16
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Good luck with that . . .

KJV 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

KJV Isaiah 14:13-14
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

KJV Revelation 13:7-8
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

KJV Daniel 7:8, 11, 19-21, 24-26
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;
20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.
21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

NO, it doesn't - and YOU should knpoe better because we've discussed this before.
But, just like your goddes/founder, Ellen White - you perpetuate this filth out of pure hate, not ignorance.
If it was only a matter of ignorance - your woundn't be guilty (John 9:41).

Seems I've hit a nerve.

FIRST of all, so that you are exposed before everybosy here - taking four phrases from from different places in Scripture and patchworking them together to create soome ominous warning is not only sinful - it BLASPHEMOUS. You're misrepresenting God by taking takiing unrelated verses from His Word and gluing them together to make ONE message.

You are the one misrepresenting here. I have quoted 4 different descriptions and perspectives of the one scene... The throne room of the Almighty. They are intimately related and have the one common theme. Comparing the real throne room of the Almighty to a counterfeit is not only proper, but necessary.

 

[Brakelite]

Ummmm, in the depths of your ignorance - you misseed the point again.

First of all - there are other photos.
Secondly - to claim that simply because a man sits in a fancy chair and is flanked by 4 people - this does NOT make him the Anti-Christ, asccording to some bizarrem home-made parchwork of Bible verses.
I can make a stronger case for Obama being the Anti-Christ - but that is for another thread . . .

Actually, let's get very very real here. Never, not once, in all the history of Protestantism did one person ever accuse the Papacy of being the Antichrist in account of the Pope sitting in a fancy chair. The real reason the reformers, almost without exception, characterized the Papacy or the popes as Antichrist were because the system, the institution, has placed itself in a position whereby Christ Himself, that is the real Jesus Christ our High Priest in heaven, is say aside and replaced by a counterfeit system of salvation and a counterfeit gospel. Such is the literal meaning of the expression Antichrist... instead of Christ. This extends not only to the priesthood of catholicism which replaces Jesus as our only High Priest and Mediator, but even to the saints and Mary, as those to whom Catholics must pray in order to receive fullest blessings. Even the co-redemtrix soft of Mary's so called ministry in heaven is a slap in the face of the true Redeemer who lives to intercede for us. There are numerous aspects and concepts bound up in Catholic dogma and doctrine which replace Christ with an earthly man made system. The sitting on the throne thingy, copying the real throne room of God above, is a symptom and sign of that greater reality.
There are in fact 10 specific criteria I could list with full explanations and historical data to substantiate and validate the reformers accusations against the system they were raised in. They knew their stuff. They didn't risk life and limb, literally, on a whim and fanciful "revolt" as some suggest. They had good sound biblical exegesis to verify and validate their charges. Would you like me to post them? It's really no trouble.

 

[Illuminator]

What does catholic traditions give you that scripture does not ?

Catholic Traditions give us Scripture itself. They both flow from the same divine wellspring. We don't
confine Divine Revelation to a book. That imposes limits on how God communicates. And is unbiblical in itself. There is no such thing as a “separate “deposit of faith” in the Catholic Church.

1 Tim. 3:14-15 –These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me (not read of me)among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but nothing about all traditions being committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;- continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it.
Paul appeals to apostolic tradition three times right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

* Lets see if the good ‘ole CCC makes any sense
80. "'Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.'[] Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own 'always, to the close of the age'.[Mt 28:20 .]"

81. "'Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.'[DV 9.]'And (Holy) Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.'

82. "As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'[DV 9.]"

It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.