Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

[bbbbbbb]

Extremely unbiblical. Of course you can prove me wrong by showing me where in scripture is says that "scripture alone is the ONLY authoritative and INFALLIBLE source for.Christian doctrine.


Wrong again. The Church safeguards scripture and Sacred Tradition and guards the faithful against heresies.


You cannot show me where Jesus promised us a book. I however can show you where He promised an authoritative and teaching Church.

BTW...what criteria did the early Church use to recognize which books were God breathed? Was it just a feeling? Was everyone in agreement?

I am still waiting for you to show me where Jesus promised a religious bureaucracy headquartered in Rome, Italy.

 

[Major1]

Extremely unbiblical. Of course you can prove me wrong by showing me where in scripture is says that "scripture alone is the ONLY authoritative and INFALLIBLE source for.Christian doctrine.


Wrong again. The Church safeguards scripture and Sacred Tradition and guards the faithful against heresies.


You cannot show me where Jesus promised us a book. I however can show you where He promised an authoritative and teaching Church.

BTW...what criteria did the early Church use to recognize which books were God breathed? Was it just a feeling? Was everyone in agreement?

I will be more than happy to give you the Scriptures you asked for. I however do not expect you to accept them.

Rev. 22:18-19............
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”.

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18:...............
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”

One criterion would have been, "Was the author an apostle or did he have the endorsement of an apostle?"

They were given divine authority. If a particular writing came from an apostle, then its authority was guaranteed. This means that most of the New Testament books would have been immediately accepted. The early believers knew that Jesus authorized these specially selected men. The spoken words of the apostles, as well as their written words, were considered to be the same as the words of Christ.

All of the New Testament documents were written in the first century - possibly before A.D. 70. Books that were written after the apostolic era could not be considered candidates for the New Testament. It was only the immediate Apostles of Jesus had that authority to speak and write for Him. No one else was given this authority and this authority was not transferred.

Universal acceptance was another key factor in recognizing what books God had divinely inspired. There were a number of books that were rejected by the church because it was recognized they did not have God's authority behind them. There was a surprising amount of agreement among the early believers as to the divine authority of our present New Testament books.

The testimony of God's Spirit would have been a factor. God's people know His voice. The fact that the present New Testament was, for the most part, readily accepted, shows that this is the case.

 

[concretecamper]

I am still waiting for you to show me where Jesus promised a religious bureaucracy headquartered in Rome, Italy.

"Where Peter is, there is the Church, where the Church is there is no death but eternal life". It is where Peter is...it is not about the location Rome

 

[bbbbbbb]

"Where Peter is, there is the Church, where the Church is there is no death but eternal life". It is where Peter is...it is not about the location Rome

Where did Jesus say that?

 

[concretecamper]

I never said Jesus said that did I? I borrowed from St Ambrose to show just how silly your question is.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I never said Jesus said that did I? I borrowed from St Ambrose to show just how silly your question is.

It is just as silly as your assertion that your denomination was promised by Jesus Christ.

 

[kepha31]

Just a quick question here from this benighted Protestant.

Does your Oral Tradition contain anything that is not contained in the Bible and, if so, does it contradict anything in the Bible?

Thank you.

Does sign language contain anything that is not spoken?
No, it's a different mode of transmitting the same message. Oral Tradition is the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. ALL that Jesus said and did in book form would stack up to the moon. . John 21:25;
Acts 20:35 (Paul quotes Jesus but it's not in the gospels)
The Bible is not intended to give ALL the details of devotional practices, especially as they developed down through the centuries. Not everything that Jesus and the Apostles taught is in the Bible. We have some documents, but most important, Oral Tradition is preserved in Apostolic Succession, and will be until the end of time.
There is nothing in Oral Tradition that contradicts Scripture. Does one wing of a bird contradict the other wing?

What Oral Tradition contradicts is innovative doctrines that are foreign to the deposit of faith.

 

[kepha31]

It is just as silly as your assertion that your denomination was promised by Jesus Christ.

The CC was founded by Jesus Christ. Like seeds and bodies they grow and expand. Is an acorn the same as an oak tree? To claim the CC is not the same as the Church Jesus founded is to rob the metaphors of their essential meaning.

If Jesus didn't institute the CC, then who did? When?

BTW, your post is a rabbit trail because concretecamper's post #100 has you stumped.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Does sign language contain anything that is not spoken?
No, it's a different mode of transmitting the same message. Oral Tradition is the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. ALL that Jesus said and did in book form would stack up to the moon. . John 21:25;
Acts 20:35 (Paul quotes Jesus but it's not in the gospels)
The Bible is not intended to give ALL the details of devotional practices, especially as they developed down through the centuries. Not everything that Jesus and the Apostles taught is in the Bible. We have some documents, but most important, Oral Tradition is preserved in Apostolic Succession, and will be until the end of time.
There is nothing in Oral Tradition that contradicts Scripture. Does one wing of a bird contradict the other wing?

What Oral Tradition contradicts is innovative doctrines that are foreign to the deposit of faith.

Thanks. A simple no would have sufficed, but your response is helpful.

If, as you assert, Oral Tradition is merely "a different mode of transmitting the same message. Oral Tradition" then, where, for example is there anything in the written tradition (e.g. the Bible) about the Death and Assumption of the Virgin Mary?

 

[Major1]

I never said Jesus said that did I? I borrowed from St Ambrose to show just how silly your question is.

So then it is a NON Biblical opinion!

 

[Major1]

Thanks. A simple no would have sufficed, but your response is helpful.

If, as you assert, Oral Tradition is merely "a different mode of transmitting the same message. Oral Tradition" then, where, for example is there anything in the written tradition (e.g. the Bible) about the Death and Assumption of the Virgin Mary?

Add.............Sinlessness of Mary.

 

[kepha31]

Thanks. A simple no would have sufficed, but your response is helpful.

If, as you assert, Oral Tradition is merely "a different mode of transmitting the same message. Oral Tradition" then, where, for example is there anything in the written tradition (e.g. the Bible) about the Death and Assumption of the Virgin Mary?

It's based on her sinlessness, which is based on Luke 1:28, and there are other biblical precedents of being "taken up".
“Dave Armstrong vs. Norman Geisler” #7: Mary's Assumption
"same message" was a poor choice of words. The Tradition of the AofM does not contradict anything in scripture.

 

[Fidelibus]

Of course not. The New Test. was not even completed until approx. 95 AD by John's Revelation of Jesus Christ.

I would be most interested to see the source of your timeline. Could or would you show what your source shows as the chronology of the first writings of the New Testament?

Thanks

 

[concretecamper]

So then it is a NON Biblical opinion!

It would be safe to say that St Ambrose saw Sacred Tradition backing up his quote.

 

[Major1]

I would be most interested to see the source of your timeline. Could or would you show what your source shows as the chronology of the first writings of the New Testament?

Thanks

I believe that you have the same ability with a computer that I do so I will let you do the work and find out what you need to know.

 

[Major1]

It would be safe to say that St Ambrose saw Sacred Tradition backing up his quote.

All that means is that he had an "Opinion". Any opinion or tradition whether it be oral or written which contradicts the Scriptures found in God's Word is wrong.

Having said that, it is also known that He said in an opinion that..............
"Each of our merits will hang in the balance, and it is often inclined to this side or that by the superior weight either of our good works or of our degenerate crimes. If evil deeds turn the scale, alas for me! But if good, then pardon is at hand. No one is free of sin; but where good works prevail, sins are lightened, overshadowed, and covered up. On the day of judgment either our works will assist us or they will plunge us into an abyss, as if dragged down by a millstone".

That is totally in-Biblical as the Scriptures tell us in Ephesians 2:8-9........
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast."

 

[kepha31]

I would be most interested to see the source of your timeline. Could or would you show what your source shows as the chronology of the first writings of the New Testament?

Thanks

I keep a file that is no longer available on line. It's very long, and long posts tend to be annoying. This link is good, but it is somewhat tedious
The Whole Bible: New Testament History

 

[kepha31]

I am still waiting for you to show me where Jesus promised a religious bureaucracy headquartered in Rome, Italy.

The central jurisdiction of the Church shifted from Jerusalem to Rome after the death of James. Peter wrote from Babylon and objectors try desperately to prove it doesn't mean Rome.

We are not a bureaucracy, we are a family.

We also have the witness of history, secular and Christian. Whenever history or Early Church Fathers is mentioned, some Protestants put their hands over their ears and run away screaming la la la.

​

"To be steeped in history is to cease to be an idiot"
Epostle

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's based on her sinlessness, which is based on Luke 1:28, and there are other biblical precedents of being "taken up".
“Dave Armstrong vs. Norman Geisler” #7: Mary's Assumption
"same message" was a poor choice of words. The Tradition of the AofM does not contradict anything in scripture.

That is a real stretch. It would be equal to saying that Mary was an albino because she was sinless. The fact, according to Romans 6:23, is that the wages of sin is death. If Mary was sinless then she would not have suffered the wages of sin. However, your Oral Tradition maintains that, in fact, she did die. Thus, you are faced with a contradiction between the Bible and your Oral Tradition, are you not?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The central jurisdiction of the Church shifted from Jerusalem to Rome after the death of James. Peter wrote from Babylon and objectors try desperately to prove it doesn't mean Rome.

We are not a bureaucracy, we are a family.

We also have the witness of history, secular and Christian. Whenever history or Early Church Fathers is mentioned, some Protestants put their hands over their ears and run away screaming la la la.

"To be steeped in history is to cease to be an idiot"
Epostle

Again, you have decided to join my discussion with Concretecamper and derail it. His assertion was that Jesus Christ Himself established the Catholic Church. I am waiting from him and, apparently now, you, to show exactly where in the Bible Jesus Christ established a religious family or bureaucracy or denomination or sect headquartered in Rome, Italy.

Just as a matter of interest, our brothers in the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches assuredly disagree with your history and have their patriarchates in various other cities, none of which was specified by Jesus Christ in the Bible.