The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I have not said anything about adequacy in this thread.
But that is the whole issue here!

I gave one example above.
Of a tradition that is identified as one being referred to in 2 Thess 2:15? I don't think so.

You should believe what is written in the Nicene Creed. You should be baptized, follow the commandments to the best of your ability, and repent when you sin. Beyond that you may do whatever you please.

All based upon Scripture. The Creed itself cites Scripture but says nothing about any other source of guidance.

I gave you one example above. Here is another example, which you may believe being an Anglican. When our blessed Lord Jesus said "This is my body" he was not merely speaking symbolically.
You are still citing Scripture.

That's a good question. I think you would agree that some are more important than others. For example, you would probably agree that our tradition that the book of James is the inspired word of God, is more important than the particular day on which our Lord's birthday is celebrated (December 25, or other dates in some churches).
We are discussing Sola Scriptura (and the reason some churches and people denounce it). If it is said that something else should be followed instead, we need to know what that might be--and why. None of that has been produced so far.

None of this subsequent line of inquiry that you and @redleghunter have engaged in changes the fact that the assertion that "The Scriptures are the only infallible authority"
I never have said that Sola Scriptura means something is infallible.
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Well, then, what are the other ones and how do we know them to be infallible?
Well I don't think we can know that either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition are infallible. You believe that Sacred Scripture is infalliable as a matter of faith. It is the same for me. Perhaps other people view it differently but at least for me I think it boils down to faith. I certainly cannot prove to anyone as a matter of pure science or logic that either is true.

So long as we know what it was. By and large we do not. We know that there was oral transmission, but not most of what was transmitted. But to the extent that there are records of what Church Fathers said, we have something to go on. The problem is that there is no reason to say that whatever they said or wrote is in step with the "oral transmission" from the Apostles. Indeed, most of the time, with most of the doctrinal issues, the Early Church Fathers are in disagreement with each other, proving that we cannot determine what of it, if any of it, can be considered the final and accurate word.
I think this is fair. At least in our modern age we tend to look at written documents as trustworthy and oral transmission, folklore, "stories" or whatever that have been passed down over time as unreliable. It is certainly true that documents that have been committed to writing are less susceptible to corruption than other forms in which information is transmitted. I simply have faith that God acts within the Catholic Church to ensure that the traditions of the apostles are communicated down to the lay faithful over the ages. But I certainly cannot prove it to you that this is the case, just as you cannot prove to an atheist that the Scriptures that you rely on as the sole rule of faith are genuine.

I think if we are honest we have to say that our view of Sacred Scripture can suffer the same problem as orally transmitted teachings. We can debate with the atheists and the Bart Ehrmans about Sacred Scripture and we will certainly lose if we attempt to prove as a matter of fact that Sacred Scripture has been authentically transmitted over time without corruption. It is very easy to demonstrate the possibility of corruption because there are no original manuscripts and the earliest copies date several hundred years after the original (and the copies themselves are not always in complete agreement). We have faith that God has preserved Sacred Scripture although the athiests and Muslims reject our belief that they are authentic. I apply that same faith to Sacred Tradition.

Of course, but how does that shed any light on what we have been discussing?
I think it indicates that the true faith is capable of being communicated over time by means other than writing.

In principle, no. So just present them to us and we'll take a look.
Well, I have given you some examples of tradition that have been communicated, and I assume that these are examples of tradition that you would agree upon. I don't think it matters if I present one, 10, or a 1000 examples as long as we agree in principle that there are certain rules of our faith that have been communicated outside of Sacred Scripture. Certainly I do not expect you to agree with every aspect of Catholic tradition. But those disagreements will ultimately come back to differences in faith, I think.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
But that is the whole issue here!
That may be the whole issue for you and others. It is not the whole issue for me.

Of a tradition that is identified as one being referred to in 2 Thess 2:15? I don't think so.

All based upon Scripture. The Creed itself cites Scripture but says nothing about any other source of guidance.

You are still citing Scripture.
No, I did not cite Sacred Scripture for the assertion that our Lord did not state "This is my body" in a symbolic manner. As you know, some denominations have a tradition whereby those words are interpreted more literally, and other denominations have a tradition whereby those words are interpreted more symbolically. But there is nowhere in Sacred Scripture itself that states anything like "This is my body" is to be taken literally or symbolically. Whether the words are to be taken literally or symbolically is a tradition and different churches have different traditions in that regard.

I would imagine that we can also say the same thing when it comes to infant baptism, which you also probably also agree to as an Anglican. There is nothing in Sacred Scripture that clearly teaches that infants are to be baptized, but that is within the tradition of our churches.

We are discussing Sola Scriptura (and the reason some churches and people denounce it). If it is said that something else should be followed instead, we need to know what that might be--and why. None of that has been produced so far.
Well I am not attempting to prove here that the Catholic way of doing things is correct. I think that would be an impossible task. My initial post in this thread was merely to demonstrate that a specific statement that @redleghunter wrote is proven false. Beyond that I don't have any particular objective of persuading people that my way of doing things is correct.

I never have said that Sola Scriptura means something is infallible.
That's cool. @redleghunter wrote that, and that is primarily what I wanted to disprove.
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Yes our Lord is obviously the Infallible Authority. Now where do we find His teachings, commands and exhortations? Answer: Holy Scriptures.
Well. As I mentioned above, you take it as a matter of faith that our Lord's teachings are found in Sacred Scripture. Muslims will say that our Lord's teachings are not found in Sacred Scripture because it has been corrupted, and that they can be found in the Quran. Catholics say that they are found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Again, it simply comes down to a matter of faith. Neither of these things can be proven as fact.

Unless of course you or others are getting direct communications from Heaven?
Well actually I believe that the Holy Spirit works within the Catholic Church to preserve and communicate the deposit of faith, but that is certainly not something I can prove.

See above as what you claim is a false premise.
I am not sure what you mean. Specifically what did I claim that is a false premise?

It is the claim of the Roman Catholic church that her magisterium is the ultimate ruling on what is infallible. Apparently this is based on Tradition and Sacred Scriptures. It is the Sacred Scriptures "plus" agencies of men.
Well I do not think it is based on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. I think her claim to authority is based on having been given it directly from Jesus and the apostles, and having it passed down through the centuries through the laying on of hands. Of course that is not something that can be proved. It is a matter of faith.

IDon't get me wrong. Jesus left us with the apostles to establish His Church. And humans minister within His Church. Those human beings are fallible. The Holy Scriptures are infallible as we have the words, commands and teachings of God present. What other than is from God to be used to test traditions and truth claims? You say the magisterium made up of fallible men. Would not we test what these men think is infallible with the only infallible source, which is God's revelation to mankind the Holy Scriptures?
Well at least as you and I are concerned, perhaps this is the crux of our disagreement. You take it as a matter of faith that Sacred Scripture is from God. I take it as a matter of faith that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are from God. I take it as a matter of faith that the Holy Spirit works within the Catholic Church to preserve the transmission of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Is it not interesting that after the apostles died and went to Glory with our Lord that those who followed them preserved the Sacred Scriptures but somehow never got around to writing down the alleged traditions you claim. That is why when asked, a Catholic cannot produce even some major doctrines that were handed down by mouth instead of by written means. Only the Gnostics claimed secret knowledge on their leaders knew about and only passed down to small groups.
Well they are all written down at some time or another, be it 50 years, 300 years, or 1950 years after our blessed Lord was born.

From a scientific perspective I can understand how you view written documents as lending towards authenticity and things that are only passed down orally as "myth" but again it is a matter of faith. There are Hindu text that predate the NT by thousands of years but that does not mean that they contain any truth simply because they are written and they are old. You take it as faith that the NT contains the truth and that these Hindu written texts are false. I take it as faith that the Sacred Tradition has been preserve. I certainly cannot prove that it has, any more so than you can prove to a Muslim that the gospels have not been corrupted.

So that is why I ask "what are the traditions not passed down in writing?" And since we have two "One True Churches" East and West the water gets a bit muddy. For example, I go to an Eastern Orthodox baptism and they dunk the catechumen three times. I go to an adult RCIA baptism and they are splashed with water. Which tradition was handed down straight from the Apostles?
Comes down to faith. Many Protestants have a tradition that infants should be baptized. Some Protestants have a tradition of the "Believer's Baptism" only. Neither can be proved or disproved with certainty from Sacred Scripture. Christians have been debating the point for 500 years.

All I am asking for is one or two major Catholic Traditions not mentioned in the Bible but was passed down unwritten.
Well I have already mentioned two in this thread. Infant baptism and the canon.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Well I don't think we can know that either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition are infallible. You believe that Sacred Scripture is infalliable as a matter of faith.
It depends on what is meant by "infallible." But in any case, you look upon Scripture in the same way, I'm thinking. But Sacred Tradition, so called? Not a chance. There is no reason to think that what passes for Sacred Tradition is either sacred or tradition.

It is the same for me. Perhaps other people view it differently but at least for me I think it boils down to faith. I certainly cannot prove to anyone as a matter of pure science or logic that either is true.

I think this is fair. At least in our modern age we tend to look at written documents as trustworthy and oral transmission, folklore, "stories" or whatever that have been passed down over time as unreliable. It is certainly true that documents that have been committed to writing are less susceptible to corruption than other forms in which information is transmitted. I simply have faith that God acts within the Catholic Church to ensure that the traditions of the apostles are communicated down to the lay faithful over the ages.
And at last we come to the answer. As an act of faith or in the mistaken belief that your church has told you the correct facts about the history it teaches, you put THAT on the par with the revealed word of God.

And yet, it's not actually Sacred Tradition in any case because, as has been noted many times before, the Eastern Orthodox and other Catholic churches which also follow Sacred Tradition have entirely different sets of "infallible" traditions! That's not Tradition! At least we all agree on the Bible as divine revelation.

But I certainly cannot prove it to you that this is the case, just as you cannot prove to an atheist that the Scriptures that you rely on as the sole rule of faith are genuine.
Is "proving" any of this to an atheist the test of its validity?

Well, I have given you some examples of tradition that have been communicated, and I assume that these are examples of tradition that you would agree upon.
?? I don't recall any such traditions being identified.

I don't think it matters if I present one, 10, or a 1000 examples as long as we agree in principle that there are certain rules of our faith that have been communicated outside of Sacred Scripture.
Sorry, no. The "traditions" that you want to put on the level of Scripture are mere guesses, they do not have the benefit of consistency or universality. As already was noted, some are dogmas in one church but not in another and then other ones are the reverse.

Well, thanks for an amicable discussion.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
It depends on what is meant by "infallible." But in any case, you look upon Scripture in the same way, I'm thinking. But Sacred Tradition, so called? Not a chance. There is no reason to think that what passes for Sacred Tradition is either sacred or tradition.
Well if you are referring to Sacred Tradition as that term is understood by the Catholic Church I can understand your sentiment. If you thought otherwise you would be Catholic. But I think you can see good reasons why there might be an oral tradition that is inspired and guarded by God in a general sense. I think if you are honest you can see that you have such traditions within your own church (infant baptism and the canon being examples).

And at last we come to the answer. As an act of faith or in the mistaken belief that your church has told you the correct facts about the history it teaches, you put THAT on the par with the revealed word of God.
Is your belief that Sacred Scripture is the revealed word of God not also based on faith? Of course God gave us minds and we use reason to assist ourselves in reaching conclusions, but do you think that you came to the conclusion that Sacred Scripture is the revealed word of God purely as a matter of rational deduction? By highlighting my words above you seem to imply that you have done something different with respect to Sacred Scripture, but that cannot be the case.

It is not as though someone presented you with a scientific proof that the Scriptures are God breathed. You believe that because you cooperated with the faith that God put in your heart enabling you to believe it. Were this not the case you would essentially take the Pelagian position - that it is possible for man to come to God naturally through his own ability, without God first acting within him.

And yet, it's not actually Sacred Tradition in any case because, as has been noted many times before, the Eastern Orthodox and other Catholic churches which also follow Sacred Tradition have entirely different sets of "infallible" traditions! That's not Tradition! At least we all agree on the Bible as divine revelation.
Well as I am sure you know we do not all agree on the Bible as divine revelation. There are books that I believe are divinely revealed that you do not. I do not think the fact that there is disagreement as to what constitutes "Sacred Tradition" is a valid argument against the concept itself. Christians disagree as to which books are inspired. Christians also disagree as to the extent to which the books are infallible. But the fact that there is disagreement as to the content of Sacred Scripture does not mean that there is any problem with the concept that God inspired a particular set of writings. So it is with Sacred Tradition. I so happen to believe that the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church is authored and preserved by God, although there are disagreements among different Christians as to what constitutes tradition.

Is "proving" any of this to an atheist the test of its validity?
Of course not. I wrote that you cannot prove that Sacred Scriptures are the inspired word of God to demonstrate to you that at foundational level your belief in that is based on faith, as is mine. If your belief that Sacred Scripture is the inspired word of God is not based on faith, then you should be able to logically, scientifically, or historically prove it to an atheist. We as Christians cannot do that because faith is a fundamental requirement for the belief. Hence St. Augustine writes "Seek not to understand so that you may believe, but to believe so that you may understand."

?? I don't recall any such traditions being identified.
I gave the inspiration of the book of James, the belief that the words "This is my body" was not meant symbolically, and infant baptism as three examples. For example, as you know, there is no teaching in Sacred Scripture that the book of James is the inspired word of God. Both you and I hold the book as the inspired word of God because it is the tradition of the church.

Sorry, no. The "traditions" that you want to put on the level of Scripture are mere guesses, they do not have the benefit of consistency or universality. As already was noted, some are dogmas in one church but not in another and then other ones are the reverse.
Well, the inspiration of the book of James is certainly universal. There is no verse in Sacred Scripture that teaches that the book of James is the inspired word of God. That is both your tradition and my tradition. We also share the same tradition with respect to infant baptism and the Real Presence / non-metaphorical understanding of "This is my body" (although I assume you would disagree with transubstantiation). Does your church not hold the inspiration of James, infant baptism and the Real Presence as divinely revealed doctrine that should be held as a matter of faith? I thought that is what your church held, but perhaps I am wrong.

Or are you simply saying that Anglican traditions (which you view as the universally and consistently held traditions) are valid while Catholic or EO traditions are not valid (because you view them as not being universal or consistent)? If this is your position this is fine, but I think the topic of this thread is sola scriptura / tradition generally, not whether this or that particular tradition is in fact the tradition of the church. Of course the various denominations will always disagree in this respect.

Well, thanks for an amicable discussion.
Likewise.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well they are all written down at some time or another, be it 50 years, 300 years, or 1950 years after our blessed Lord was born.
That’s the question I’ve been wondering if Catholics can answer.

A link between what oral traditions and when they were finally written.

Can you answer that question?
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
That’s the question I’ve been wondering if Catholics can answer.

A link between what oral traditions and when they were finally written.

Can you answer that question?
You can do that for yourself. You know what the Church teaches and you have access to a library.

As I wrote before I would be happy to do the work for you. You know what my fee is.

Honestly I am not sure why you are so concerned with that. It is not as though writing something down on a piece of paper at a particular point in time lends to its credibility. It is not as though Sacred Scripture is the word of God or is reliable because it happens to be in written form.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Well if you are referring to Sacred Tradition as that term is understood by the Catholic Church I can understand your sentiment. If you thought otherwise you would be Catholic. But I think you can see good reasons why there might be an oral tradition that is inspired and guarded by God in a general sense.
There is no reason to think that. He gave us his word in Scripture; Scripture doesn't hint at anything else being its equal; and the Bible is timeless.

The idea you are suggesting is more like a mental exercise or one of those "what ifs" that we sometimes contemplate, and not necessarily just about divine revelation.

I think if you are honest you can see that you have such traditions within your own church (infant baptism and the canon being examples).
Whoa. That might be called a tradition of sorts, but by the word all you mean there is that it is custom, not a second stream of divine revelation, etc. which is what the Catholic churches say Holy Tradition is.

As for the baptism of infants, that's based on Scripture. And the canonization of Scripture was not because of Sacred Tradition. The books were all in use in the Christian churches before canonization and the process simply put a stamp of approval on them and assembled them into a single package (which we now refer to as "The Bible")

Is your belief that Sacred Scripture is the revealed word of God not also based on faith?
It is based on the Scriptures having proved themselves. Had we been in possession of some sacred writings like the Hindus have or some other religions--essentially a disconnected series of tales of celestial going-ons and related admonitions about how to live a full life, etc.....then perhaps. But as you know, the Bible is not that way, and although it has been called the most challenged book ever written, it has stood up to the doubters remarkably well.

But that is only part of the answer. All the branches of Christianity accept the Bible for what it claims to be. There is no division between Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or even the cults when it comes to this. So, if I am to accept Christianity at all, acceptance of the Bible is automatic.

Of course God gave us minds and we use reason to assist ourselves in reaching conclusions, but do you think that you came to the conclusion that Sacred Scripture is the revealed word of God purely as a matter of rational deduction? By highlighting my words above you seem to imply that you have done something different with respect to Sacred Scripture, but that cannot be the case.
The highlighting was of a statement you made that you accept what you do simply because you have decided to go with whatever one of the churches tells you. That's why people accept Sacred Tradition, not because it has proven itself.

It is not as though someone presented you with a scientific proof that the Scriptures are God breathed. You believe that because you cooperated with the faith that God put in your heart enabling you to believe it.
Well, that probably is fair to say, but it also is the case that there is a significant element of the Bible having proved itself in addition. Faith in the theological sense of the word does not mean to take as true something that is nonsense on its face.

Well as I am sure you know we do not all agree on the Bible as divine revelation. There are books that I believe are divinely revealed that you do not. I do not think the fact that there is disagreement as to what constitutes "Sacred Tradition" is a valid argument against the concept itself.
Sacred Tradition is not in any way a solid, persuasive concept. It doesn't even agree with its own supposed rules. There is nothing persuasive in the concept, not from logic, history, or from Scripture. It's totally speculation; and the doctrines derived in that way are different in every one of the Catholic communions. How can that be? If Tradition is what it supposed to be, the RC, EO, OO,Old Catholics, and the other Catholic-style churches that say they go by Tradition would not be picking out different items from history and saying that these are dogmas, let alone divinely-sent.

Christians disagree as to which books are inspired.
Yes, but that is a rather minor disagreement, not at all like what I was referring to with Sacred Tradition. Seriously, when arguments about this get going, it always seems to be the case that the two sides make a mountain out of the differences whereas they really are small and inconsequential. Really.

Christians also disagree as to the extent to which the books are infallible.
Sure, but that mainly relates to how accurately they have been translated. That is important, but it doesn't mean that the revelation was in error itself.

But the fact that there is disagreement as to the content of Sacred Scripture does not mean that there is any problem with the concept that God inspired a particular set of writings. So it is with Sacred Tradition.
Certainly it does. Tradition is supposed, for one thing, to be based upon actual beliefs, ones that have been part of the church since the beginning, and not just in one corner of the Christian world. Hardly any of the dogmas that are supposedly based on Sacred Tradition even come close to meeting the standard.

Some idea catches fire within the church's leadership, or sometimes it's popular with the laity, and then when it is decided to make it a doctrine, voila, it is said to be because of "Sacred Tradition," that's all. Some of these, such as Papal Infallibility, are so obviously defective that it should embarrass every Catholic.

I so happen to believe that the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church is authored and preserved by God....
Of course you do. That's what you've been taught to think. I was, too.

I wrote that you cannot prove that Sacred Scriptures are the inspired word of God to demonstrate to you that at foundational level your belief in that is based on faith, as is mine. If your belief that Sacred Scripture is the inspired word of God is not based on faith, then you should be able to logically, scientifically, or historically prove it to an atheist.
Well, I don't know that I cannot do that. I just don't think that particular exercise proves anything.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You can do that for yourself. You know what the Church teaches and you have access to a library.

As I wrote before I would be happy to do the work for you. You know what my fee is.

Honestly I am not sure why you are so concerned with that. It is not as though writing something down on a piece of paper at a particular point in time lends to its credibility. It is not as though Sacred Scripture is the word of God or is reliable because it happens to be in written form.
This is the sticking point. You cite Sacred Tradition as an equal in infallible authority as Sacred Scriptures but can’t point to when they were written down and given authority.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Albion
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
There is no reason to think that. He gave us his word in Scripture; Scripture doesn't hint at anything else being its equal; and the Bible is timeless.

The idea you are suggesting is more like a mental exercise or one of those "what ifs" that we sometimes contemplate, and not necessarily just about divine revelation.
Sacred Scripture expressly refers to oral traditions and indicates that the recipients of the letter are to adhere to them. I already gave you the verse I believe. But that is fine if you think that I am just blowing smoke. I am comfortable with what I believe and the bases for it (faith and reason).

Whoa. That might be called a tradition of sorts, but by the word all you mean there is that it is custom, not a second stream of divine revelation, etc. which is what the Catholic churches say Holy Tradition is.
Well this is interesting. You do not hold that the canon of Scripture is divinely revealed and must he held by all Christians as a matter of faith? You would say that is merely a custom? If that is the case, how can Scripture be your rule of faith? I am honestly confused by what you have written here.

As for the baptism of infants, that's based on Scripture.
No. It is based on the interpretive tradition of Sacred Scripture. Both you and I know very well that there is nothing in Scripture that clearly teaches that infants should be baptized. Martin Luther implies as much here:

Infant Baptism: Why do Anglicans Baptize Babies? - Anglican Pastor

Since our baptizing has been thus from the beginning of Christianity and the custom has been to baptize children, and since no one can prove with good reasons that they do not have faith, we should not make changes and build on such weak arguments. For if we are going to change or do away with customs that are traditional, it is necessary to prove convincingly that these are contrary to the Word of God. (“Concerning Rebaptism”, p 353).​

And I will spare you from asking you to provide a verse that teaches it.

But please let me clarify exactly what it is you believe. Do you not believe that it is a divinely revealed truth that infants should be baptized? For you, is that merely a matter of custom that people are free to accept or reject? I had thought that infant baptism was a doctrine of faith for Anglicans, but perhaps that understanding was incorrect.

And the canonization of Scripture was not because of Sacred Tradition. The books were all in use in the Christian churches before canonization and the process simply put a stamp of approval on them and assembled them into a single package (which we now refer to as "The Bible")

It is based on the Scriptures having proved themselves. Had we been in possession of some sacred writings like the Hindus have or some other religions--essentially a disconnected series of tales of celestial going-ons and related admonitions about how to live a full life, etc.....then perhaps. But as you know, the Bible is not that way, and although it has been called the most challenged book ever written, it has stood up to the doubters remarkably well.

But that is only part of the answer. All the branches of Christianity accept the Bible for what it claims to be. There is no division between Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or even the cults when it comes to this. So, if I am to accept Christianity at all, acceptance of the Bible is automatic.
Not all of the branches of Christianity accept the Bible for what it claims to be. Protestants do not accept the Bible for what it claims to be, from my perspective, because you reject 7 books that I consider to be the inspired word of God. If I came to you and I said "The Catholic Church knows that these 7 books are the inspired word of God because they have proved themselves" and so on and so forth you would say "Swag that is weak sauce." But that is essentially the argument that you have made above.

But that is neither here nor there. For this thread I define Sacred Tradition as divinely revealed truths passed down from Christ or the apostles, and which are not found within the text of Sacred Scripture itself and that must be held by the Christian faithful. By this definition the statement that "The book of James is the inspired word of God" is Sacred Tradition. Or is it actually that you do not believe that the above statement is a divinely revealed truth, or that it need not be held by the Christian faithful? Again, I would find it odd for someone to hold Sola Scriptura, if one need not even hold that the books themselves are inspired in the first place.

The highlighting was of a statement you made that you accept what you do simply because you have decided to go with whatever one of the churches tells you. That's why people accept Sacred Tradition, not because it has proven itself.
You cannot prove that "Sacred Scripture has proven itself".

Well, that probably is fair to say, but it also is the case that there is a significant element of the Bible having proved itself in addition. Faith in the theological sense of the word does not mean to take as true something that is nonsense on its face.
Well put another way here I think that you are attempting to indicate that faith is not contrary to reason. If that is what you mean I agree.

Sacred Tradition is not in any way a solid, persuasive concept. It doesn't even agree with its own supposed rules. There is nothing persuasive in the concept, not from logic, history, or from Scripture. It's totally speculation; and the doctrines derived in that way are different in every one of the Catholic communions. How can that be? If Tradition is what it supposed to be, the RC, EO, OO,Old Catholics, and the other Catholic-style churches that say they go by Tradition would not be picking out different items from history and saying that these are dogmas, let alone divinely-sent.
Well it is not my intention to persuade you so I will not go down this rabbit hole. I would think that many of the arguments you allude to above are often used by atheists, Muslims, and other non-believers in attacking Sacred Scripture. They will point to supposed contradictions, historical and scientific inconsistencies, competing and conflicting interpretations among different Protestant denominations and so forth. They view Sacred Scripture in exactly the same way that you view Sacred Tradition. Now, I am sure that you have an answer to all of those criticisms but it is essentially the same type of thinking that you are engaging in. If the atheists are wrong in their conclusions concerning Sacred Scripture I would hope you could at least leave open the possibility that you might be wrong also. But that is up to you. Personally I leave open the possibility that I could be wrong.

Yes, but that is a rather minor disagreement, not at all like what I was referring to with Sacred Tradition. Seriously, when arguments about this get going, it always seems to be the case that the two sides make a mountain out of the differences whereas they really are small and inconsequential. Really.
Well, I don't think that the removal of 7 books that are the inspired word of God, or the inclusion of 7 books that are not the inspired word of God is a "minor disagreement". But that is neither here nor there. I suppose we all have our standards as for what is major or minor.

Sure, but that mainly relates to how accurately they have been translated. That is important, but it doesn't mean that the revelation was in error itself.

Certainly it does. Tradition is supposed, for one thing, to be based upon actual beliefs, ones that have been part of the church since the beginning, and not just in one corner of the Christian world. Hardly any of the dogmas that are supposedly based on Sacred Tradition even come close to meeting the standard.
Well the Christian Church remained in only one corner of the world during the time of Christ and the apostles, so that is neither here nor there. The question is whether whether Sacred Tradition was revealed by Christ and the apostles, or whether it was not. We disagree on that question and that is fine. If you thought other than you did you would be Catholic of course.

Some idea catches fire within the church's leadership, or sometimes it's popular with the laity, and then when it is decided to make it a doctrine, voila, it is said to be because of "Sacred Tradition," that's all. Some of these, such as Papal Infallibility, are so obviously defective that it should embarrass every Catholic.
Well that is how atheists view Christianity. That it is just completely illogical and was just created like "poof" out of thin air. I am comfortable if you view Catholic Tradition in the same manner. I am perfectly fine with what I believe and with the bases for it.

As for Papal Infallibility, I would most likely look to Sacred Scripture before Sacred Tradition for that belief, but that is neither here nor there. People have been debating it for hundreds of years and we need not do so here.

Of course you do. That's what you've been taught to think. I was, too.
Well I do not think I was exactly brainwashed by the Catholic Church, if that is what you are insinuating. I was a Protestant for much longer than I have been Catholic, although I have been a Catholic a good number of years now as well. It is not as if all Catholics became so out of sheer indoctrination from our youths or an unwillingness to apply reason.

Well, I don't know that I cannot do that. I just don't think that particular exercise proves anything.
Well this is quite interesting. Do you think that a person can rationally come to accept our blessed Lord as savior as a matter of reason, logic or history? Do you think that a man can become Christian without divine intervention on the part of God?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
This is the sticking point. You cite Sacred Tradition as an equal in infallible authority as Sacred Scriptures but can’t point to when they were written down and given authority.
Well I could do it with reasonable certainty but it would take time and effort to do so. Honestly if you pay me what I asked you, I will take the time and put it together for you.

But if you wanted something that comes close to that I would refer you to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, or the Denzinger compendium as good resources.

Besides. I am still not very sure why it matters. You can't give me absolute dates as to when the multiple books of Sacred Scripture were written, and many of the datings for the various books are still debated among Christians. You do no have the original manuscripts of Sacred Scripture any more than I have an audio recording of Christ or the apostles. Please correct me if I am wrong but you seem to think that the fact that the Sacred Scriptures were written down somehow makes them authentic or authoritative? The Quran and many other religious books are written down, some of them before Sacred Scripture, yet these books are false. So you don't seem to have a valid point. Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are authoritative because they are inspired by God. I hold that as a matter of faith. I cannot prove that Sacred Tradition is the inspired word of God through logic any more so than you can prove that Sacred Scripture is the inspired word of God through logic to an atheist. Sacred Scripture, when not taken as a matter of faith, suffers many of the same authenticity / transmission problems that Sacred Tradition or any other religious text faces. So I honestly do not think you have a point here, or do not understand what your point is.

Basically it seems that the crux of both your argument and the argument of @Albion is that Sacred Tradition cannot be proven as true or reliable as historical fact. To me that seems like an untenable position for any Christian to take, because the same exact thing can be said of Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture cannot be proven as true or reliable as a historical fact. Not even William Lane Craig would go that far and he puts forth the logical/historical case for Christianity better than anyone. And to do so would negate the necessity of faith and hope. There is no need for faith in something that can be proven as a matter of pure science or history.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well I could do it with reasonable certainty but it would take time and effort to do so.

If Sacred Tradition is infallible should not the Catholic Church teach this to you? Were you raised Roman Catholic or RCIA?

But if you wanted something that comes close to that I would refer you to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, or the Denzinger compendium as good resourc
I was born, raised strictly, observing and educated Catholic through university. I learned to fear God in the Catholic Church (which is good) but Grace and Peace elsewhere.

You can't give me absolute dates as to when the multiple books of Sacred Scripture were written, and many of the datings for the various books are still debated among Christians.

Be careful. You don’t have to nuke the Bible in trying to promote your oral traditions. But yes I can give you early testimony of an early canon.

St Irenaeus was clear on this:



1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the discipleand interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)

This link shows how much the early fathers used the NT books.

Early Christian NT References

I guess you can believe non Christian and even some Christian scholars advocating for some NT books written later in time past the 1st Century, but that is not the witness of the early church but 19th Century skeptics.

But really you don’t have to nuke the Bible to save your tradition. All you have to do really is examine your Catholic tradition to find out when certain elements of it was clearly made authoritative by your Magisterium.

I would recommend reading about Cardinal Newman’s theory of doctrinal development and how it was used to make infallible rulings on “traditions” not realized by the church like before 1950.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Basically it seems that the crux of both your argument and the argument of @Albion is that Sacred Tradition cannot be proven as true or reliable as historical fact. To me that seems like an untenable position for any Christian to take, because the same exact thing can be said of Sacred Scripture.
No not really. Don’t know where you are getting this. We have over 25,000 extant NT manuscripts in existence today in over 5 languages. That’s proof.

We could also reconstruct most of the NT if not all from the writings of church fathers and doctors of the church. That is supporting evidence.

The church from the beginning cherish and held Scriptures as God’s Holy written Word. We have that evidence from the multitude of manuscripts.

When you write things down they tend to survive history. The NT compared to other works of history is hands down the winner. No other document(s) from antiquity even comes close to the authenticity of Holy Scriptures.

Here are some resources to examine.

JEDP
Answering the Documentary Hypothesis | CARM.org

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2002/06...f-the-graf-wellhausen-documentary-hypothesis/

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org

Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)

The Institute for Creation Research

http://www.equip.org/article/facts-for-skeptics-of-the-new-testament/

Manuscript Evidence by David Hocking

Is the New Testament Text Reliable? | Stand to Reason

The Textual Reliability of the New Testament | John Ankerberg Show

http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/410

4. The Manuscripts Tell The Story: The New Testament Is Reliable

A Closer Look: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

Bible Menu

New Testament Manuscripts Copyright by Norman L. Geisler ppt download

The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament : Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament | Cold Case Christianity

New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship

Timeline of New Testament Books - New Testament Charts (Bible History Online)

Mark fragment Qumran: 7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus?

Matthew dating: Arguments for a pre-70 CE Dating of Matthew's Gospel

Early Gospels: The case for the early dating of the Gospels

NT documents: New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship

When Was the New Testament Completed?

Archeological Evidence - Evidences of the Bible

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ramsay/ramsay_gasque.pdf

Josephus and the Old Testament | Scriptures of the Jewish Bible - the Law, the Prophets and the Writings

Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, BOOK I, Whiston section 8 --Josephus

Book of Daniel scholarship: An Introduction to the Book of Daniel

Biblical timelines: Time Line Survey of Bible Events

Daniel DSS: New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls

Jewish Talmud and Death of Jesus: The Jewish Talmud and the Death of Christ

Evidence external of historical Jesus Christ: Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia

4. Jesus Feeds 5,000 People (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15)

The Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses: We Can Trust the Factuality of the Gospel, by Bob and Gretchen Passantino

The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice : Greenleaf, Simon, 1783-1853 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - Daniel 9 Daniel 9fragments.
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If Sacred Tradition is infallible should not the Catholic Church teach this to you? Were you raised Roman Catholic or RCIA?


I was born, raised strictly, observing and educated Catholic through university. I learned to fear God in the Catholic Church (which is good) but Grace and Peace elsewhere.



Be careful. You don’t have to nuke the Bible in trying to promote your oral traditions. But yes I can give you early testimony of an early canon.

St Irenaeus was clear on this:



1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the discipleand interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)

This link shows how much the early fathers used the NT books.

Early Christian NT References

I guess you can believe non Christian and even some Christian scholars advocating for some NT books written later in time past the 1st Century, but that is not the witness of the early church but 19th Century skeptics.

But really you don’t have to nuke the Bible to save your tradition. All you have to do really is examine your Catholic tradition to find out when certain elements of it was clearly made authoritative by your Magisterium.

I would recommend reading about Cardinal Newman’s theory of doctrinal development and how it was used to make infallible rulings on “traditions” not realized by the church like before 1950.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Nuke the Bible". I hold that it is the inspired, inerrant, word of God.

The only nuking I know of is when ya'll decided to remove 7 books.

I don't doubt that Sacred Scripture was used very early on during the Church. But I am not sure why that in and of itself matters. The books do not become more or less authentic because they were written at any particular point of time. We hold that they are the inspired word of God, perfect and inerrant, as a matter of faith. We don't hold that because the book of Matthew was written in 50 AD (or whichever year it was written).
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
No not really. Don’t know where you are getting this. We have over 25,000 extant NT manuscripts in existence today in over 5 languages. That’s proof.
That's not proof of anything. There are thousands of old manuscripts of the Quran and many other religious texts.

And the earliest NT manuscripts in existence are all several hundred years older than the original manuscripts. A whole lot of editing and alteration can take place over the course of several hundred years. There is simply no way to prove that they are the same, although we can make a strong case based on reason.

And even if we had the exact manuscripts written by the hand of St. Paul, the gospel writers and others themselves, that would not prove that the contents are true or that the writings themselves were the inspired word of God. One must exercise faith at some point.

We could also reconstruct most of the NT if not all from the writings of church fathers and doctors of the church. That is supporting evidence.

The church from the beginning cherish and held Scriptures as God’s Holy written Word. We have that evidence from the multitude of manuscripts.

When you write things down they tend to survive history. The NT compared to other works of history is hands down the winner. No other document(s) from antiquity even comes close to the authenticity of Holy Scriptures.
None of that is proof. Sure, as far as a pure historical textual analysis Sacred Scripture fairs better than any other documents from antiquity, but "better than other documents" is not proof of authenticity.

Here are some resources to examine.

JEDP
Answering the Documentary Hypothesis | CARM.org

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2002/06...f-the-graf-wellhausen-documentary-hypothesis/

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org

Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)

The Institute for Creation Research

http://www.equip.org/article/facts-for-skeptics-of-the-new-testament/

Manuscript Evidence by David Hocking

Is the New Testament Text Reliable? | Stand to Reason

The Textual Reliability of the New Testament | John Ankerberg Show

http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/410

4. The Manuscripts Tell The Story: The New Testament Is Reliable

A Closer Look: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

Bible Menu

New Testament Manuscripts Copyright by Norman L. Geisler ppt download

The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament : Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament | Cold Case Christianity

New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship

Timeline of New Testament Books - New Testament Charts (Bible History Online)

Mark fragment Qumran: 7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus?

Matthew dating: Arguments for a pre-70 CE Dating of Matthew's Gospel

Early Gospels: The case for the early dating of the Gospels

NT documents: New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship

When Was the New Testament Completed?

Archeological Evidence - Evidences of the Bible

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ramsay/ramsay_gasque.pdf

Josephus and the Old Testament | Scriptures of the Jewish Bible - the Law, the Prophets and the Writings

Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, BOOK I, Whiston section 8 --Josephus

Book of Daniel scholarship: An Introduction to the Book of Daniel

Biblical timelines: Time Line Survey of Bible Events

Daniel DSS: New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls

Jewish Talmud and Death of Jesus: The Jewish Talmud and the Death of Christ

Evidence external of historical Jesus Christ: Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia

4. Jesus Feeds 5,000 People (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15)

The Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses: We Can Trust the Factuality of the Gospel, by Bob and Gretchen Passantino

The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice : Greenleaf, Simon, 1783-1853 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - Daniel 9 Daniel 9fragments.
I have many good books on the historical reliability of the Bible but thank you. I happen to think that the historical case for their reliability is very strong. But they have not been proven as authentic as a matter of fact, and there are plenty of people such as Ehrman and others who have demonstrated that.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's not proof of anything. There are thousands of old manuscripts of the Quran and many other religious texts.
Actually what I provided is physical proof.

And no we don’t have thousands of older manuscripts of anything from antiquity in the thousand. Closest is the Iliad with a few hundred but the time lapse is over 400 years.

The earliest NT manuscript is one from the Gospel of John dated ca 120 AD which would be 15-20 years after the Apostle’s death.

And the earliest NT manuscripts in existence are all several hundred years older than the original manuscripts.
No see above. The links I left you explain the scholarship.
A whole lot of editing and alteration can take place over the course of several hundred years. There is simply no way to prove that they are the same, although we can make a strong case based on reason.
Read the links if interested. But no when you have over 25,000 extant manuscripts matching to a 99% reliability that’s pretty solid. Add to that the early Christian writers and that brings the evidence to irrefutable.

And even if we had the exact manuscripts written by the hand of St. Paul, the gospel writers and others themselves, that would not prove that the contents are true or that the writings themselves were the inspired word of God. One must exercise faith at some point.
The Scriptures are authoritative in themselves as God speaks to us. Why they were copied so many times.
None of that is proof. Sure, as far as a pure historical textual analysis Sacred Scripture fairs better than any other documents from antiquity, but "better than other documents" is not proof of authenticity.
Not better. Astounding and irrefutable evidence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Actually what I provided is physical proof.
Manuscripts are not proof. They are evidence. The existence of a large number of purported copies of a document do not prove that they are true copies of the original.

And no we don’t have thousands of older manuscripts of anything from antiquity in the thousand. Closest is the Iliad with a few hundred but the time lapse is over 400 years.
The fact that there are more copies of Sacred Scripture than there are of the Iliad is not proof that the copies of Sacred Scripture are true.

The earliest NT manuscript is one from the Gospel of John dated ca 120 AD which would be 15-20 years after the Apostle’s death.
I assume that you are referring to P52. It includes only 18:31-33,37,38. It is a 3 inch by 3 inch fragment that fits in the palm of your hand. And it does not even contain one single sentence of NT text. It only contains small portions from several different lines of text. You can view it here:

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia

No see above. The links I left you explain the scholarship.
There are small fragments of copies from the 2nd century but there are no complete copies. Most of the 2nd century fragments are less than a single page of text. You see the first complete copies of individual books around AD 200. You do not see any complete NT manuscripts until the 4th century.

Read the links if interested. But no when you have over 25,000 extant manuscripts matching to a 99% reliability that’s pretty solid. Add to that the early Christian writers and that brings the evidence to irrefutable.
I already wrote that the case for authenticity was strong. But it is not irrefutable. I can have 1 million purported copies of a document that agree with each other 100%. This does not prove that they are true copies of the original. They could all be copies of a forged document. And throwing around numbers like 25,000 is not all that impressive when the vast majority of those copies date hundreds and thousands of years after the originals.

The Scriptures are authoritative in themselves as God speaks to us.
Absolutely. But we take this as a matter of faith. You cannot prove it. If you think you can, please go to an atheist or Muslim forum, attempt to prove it, and link the results back here. Heck. You can't even prove it to me and I believe that they are the word of God.

Why they were copied so many times.
Plenty of religious books have been copied thousands of times. That does not prove the truth of the contents nor the authenticity.

Not better. Astounding and irrefutable evidence.
No. It is not irrefutable evidence merely because you say so. You can easily go to websites of Muslims, atheists, or other non-believers where they dismantle the argument that you make above. Here is one example:

Textual Reliability / Accuracy Of The New Testament

Again, that is not to say that I believe that Sacred Scripture is inaccurate or is not the inspired word of God. I most certainly do believe that they are inspired. And I believe that the historical / textual case for authenticity is very strong. But "irrefutable proof" we do not have no matter how much you state it. If you had "irrefutable proof" you should be able to convince everyone of your claims, and for the most part the only people who believe that there is ""irrefutable proof" are other Christians.

Do you have any problem with admitting that you believe certain things as a matter of faith? Our blessed Lord places great emphasis on faith in the New Testament, so I do not know why you and @Albion seem to be troubled by the idea that Christians take our beliefs as a matter of faith (exercising our reason as well, of course). Again, if Sacred Scripture and Christianity can be proved solely as a matter of history or reason, what need is there for faith?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0