A persistent error soon becomes a serious heresy.

[JEBofChristTheLord]

It is evident that you do not know what apostolic tradition is nor do your posts indicate an understanding of what sacred tradition means and how it operates. Let me offer a short explanation:

1. apostolic tradition is teaching that comes from the apostles of the Lord, Jesus Christ
2. sacred tradition is apostolic tradition and apostolic example, as in, for example, the liturgy and prayers of the Church
3. sacred tradition served as a subordinate tool to be used for the right interpretation and right understanding of sacred scripture
4. the Church's magisterium, that is to say, the Church's authority to teach, is derived from sacred scripture and sacred tradition and is wholly dependent on the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the Holy Spirit's work in bringing to mind all that Jesus said and taught.

Many have heard the above, and because of many profoundly nonsacred inclusions, shall not consider the definitions to be true.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Many have heard the above, and because of many profoundly nonsacred inclusions, shall not consider the definitions to be true.

many have seen that kind of objection and many count it as an example of engaging in bad faith commentary.

 

[ozso]

I cannot teach you to read. Nevertheless "was spoken" ought to give you a clue.

They would go into a synagogue and scripture was read to them. In Luke 4:14-30 the people listened to Jesus read from Isaiah. Scripture was spoken in the synagogues. I get that, but what is your point? Right now I'm speaking to you through text, so again, what's your point?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

They would go into a synagogue and scripture was read to them. In Luke 4:14-30 the people listened to Jesus read from Isaiah. Scripture was spoken in the synagogues. I get that, but what is your point? Right now I'm speaking to you through text, so again, what's your point?

We were discussing John 10:35, that was not in a synagogue.

 

[ozso]

Do not be fooled by the subterfuge of your interlocutor, my view is that God reveals (usually by speaking) and man records (as scripture). What God reveals is often called "the word of God" and a little less often "the Word of God" which in both cases is not a reference to what is written which is called scripture. In many cases "Word of God" is without doubt a reference to Jesus Christ who is the revealer of the Father.

Demonstrating that you're incorrect is not an act of subterfuge. Jesus calling scripture (whether read by someone or someone hearing it being read) "the word of God" is solid proof that it is acceptable and permissible to refer to the Bible as "the word of God".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We were discussing John 10:35, that was not in a synagogue.

Demonstrating that you're incorrect is not an act of subterfuge. Jesus calling scripture (whether read by someone or someone hearing it being read) "the word of God" is solid proof that it is acceptable and permissible to refer to the Bible as "the word of God".

Come back to John 10:35; all this nonsense you've posted is just time wasting.

 

[ozso]

We were discussing John 10:35, that was not in a synagogue.

You're being evasive. What's the significant difference between reading scripture and hearing it being spoken?

What's the difference between spoken and written scripture?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You're being evasive. What's the significant difference between reading scripture and hearing it being spoken?

What's the difference between spoken and written scripture?

the difference is that scripture is written not spoken.

 

[ozso]

the difference is that scripture is written not spoken.

But what difference does that make? What difference does it make between reading scripture and hearing scripture being read? Are not both versions still scripture?

 

[ozso]

It is evident that you do not know what apostolic tradition is nor do your posts indicate an understanding of what sacred tradition means and how it operates. Let me offer a short explanation:

1. apostolic tradition is teaching that comes from the apostles of the Lord, Jesus Christ
2. sacred tradition is apostolic tradition and apostolic example, as in, for example, the liturgy and prayers of the Church
3. sacred tradition served as a subordinate tool to be used for the right interpretation and right understanding of sacred scripture
4. the Church's magisterium, that is to say, the Church's authority to teach, is derived from sacred scripture and sacred tradition and is wholly dependent on the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the Holy Spirit's work in bringing to mind all that Jesus said and taught.

This appears to be a claim that the church has the authority to make stuff up that's unscriptural. If the church says it, then it's true, even if it's completely unscriptural.

The main difference here is that scripture never changes and remains consistent.

Whereas what the church has made up over the centuries has been changed or eliminated by the church numerous times.

What the church says has changed so much in just the last 60 or so years, that many Catholics say that the post Vatican II Roman Catholic Church is apostate.

Yet scripture remains the same; unbroken. Because scripture, which is the word of God, can not be broken John 10:35

 

[ozso]

Protestants, in recent times and especially in the USA, are so used to calling their bible "the Word" that some of them have begun to treat it as "The Word" and as an object of worship. So far, in CF, I have encountered four Protestants who have stated in their posts that the bible is God. And they will not retract their Idolatrous remarks even after the idolatry of it is pointed out to them. This is astounding; a failure of catechesis so profound that one wonders if the people in question have any understanding of the Christian faith.

What they're saying is scripture contains the mind and the will of God ie what we know about God, is contained in scripture.

As opposed to the will of God supposedly being contained in unscriptural man-made dogma.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But what difference does that make? What difference does it make between reading scripture and hearing scripture being read? Are not both versions still scripture?

It's hard for me to believe that you cannot tell the difference.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This is a claim that the church has the authority to make stuff up

I think that remedial reading may be called for.

 

[ozso]

It's hard for me to believe that you cannot tell the difference.

There isn't one. Which is why you can't explain what difference it makes.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What they're saying is scripture contains the mind and the will of God ie what we know about God, is contained in scripture.

As opposed to the will of God supposedly being contained in unscriptural man-made dogma.

All dogma is from sacred scripture.

 

[ozso]

I think that remedial reading may be called for.

Snark avails not. People resort to snark when they can't come up with an cogent refutation or a cogent explanation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There isn't one. Which is why you can't explain what difference it makes.

Away with this bad faith commentary.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Snark avails not. People resort to snark when they can't come up with an cogent refutation or a cogent explanation.

Frustration can produce frustrated comments.

 

[ozso]

All dogma is from sacred scripture.

Yes it is. Which make scripture the solid foundation upon which dogma and tradition is built. But while all scripture is solid, the dogma and tradition built upon it can be unsound. Also there is eisegetical dogma and tradition. That is dogma and tradition that's built upon reading into scripture what it doesn't really say.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

All dogma is from sacred scripture.

All dogma encouraging vow-sworn poverty, chastity, and obedience, is of evil, according to Christ the Lord. Behavior of Apostles and others, does not supercede that which Christ the Lord has said. There are other examples.

The evil behind all sworn vows, has quite a large number of consequences for dogma. Because of these sworn vows, those that would have defended many churches against dogma of the evil one who denies the primacy of Christ the Lord, were killed, for about one thousand years.