If Protestantism is true, why they are not united? (2)

[Standing Up]

If Christianity is true, why are they not united?

What'd Paul say?

 

[sculleywr]

RC and EO have no direct linkage to scripture or apostles for their ever-virgin belief.

Linkage was provided that shows scripture and tradition proving virginity ended. We know the why (proof of God in the flesh). We know the how (normal human birth).

You haven't proven direct linkage of the Canon of Scripture (that is, the table of contents in your Bible) to the Apostles. I mean, it is hypocritical that you hold to the tradition of your handy little table of contents that tells you that this is the Bible without proving that list is truly the Bible intended by the Apostles, and then requiring us to do with our traditions what you aren't willing to do with yours.

So please, let's set a standard you can actually meet. Since the canon you use fo the New Testament wasn't formed until the 300's, we could go with that date. We could use the 600's for the Jews forming the Masoretic canon, or the 1600's when your Protestant canon of the Old Testament became standard use. So, can we trace our Tradition closer than yours? yes we can.

Of course, you've ignored this request twice. Is it because you're scared?

 

[sculleywr]

What'd Paul say?

"Is Christ divided?"

 

[sculleywr]

I said "If Christ is NOT the center, then it is wrong."

Sorry. I was misreading it. Welcome to my world of missing words -_-

 

[Standing Up]

You haven't proven direct linkage of the Canon of Scripture (that is, the table of contents in your Bible) to the Apostles. I mean, it is hypocritical that you hold to the tradition of your handy little table of contents that tells you that this is the Bible without proving that list is truly the Bible intended by the Apostles, and then requiring us to do with our traditions what you aren't willing to do with yours.

So please, let's set a standard you can actually meet. Since the canon you use fo the New Testament wasn't formed until the 300's, we could go with that date. We could use the 600's for the Jews forming the Masoretic canon, or the 1600's when your Protestant canon of the Old Testament became standard use. So, can we trace our Tradition closer than yours? yes we can.

Of course, you've ignored this request twice. Is it because you're scared?

Keep in mind I'm not the one who trots out 2 Thes 2:15 about abiding the oral traditions extant in Paul's time. Which of course no one can answer (except to point to scripture). IOW, it's not my standard against which you're complaining, but against the justification used by OO EO RC to abide their contradictory traditions.

To be clear, I'm all for scripture and tradition that ties to apostles (scripture). The ever-virgin idea is a good example.

We don't find the idea in scripture of ever-virgin (except Artemis/Diana) applied to Mary. We do find the normal birth belief (came by water/blood John). We then also find this same normal birth belief in tradition (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem). Normal birth proves no more virginity; it proves His humanity. Not to mention the brothers of Christ (sons of Joseph/Mary) that also come from scripture and found in tradition.

True enough we find the ever-virgin idea in tradition, but if we look, we find it in the Gnostic camp of Marcion, Valentinus, etc who thought Christ a phantom, a fake human, a ghost passing through Mary or out her side.

So again, I'm all for scripture and traditions that tie to apostles.

As to your specific question, I believe a case can be made that the NT canon was well in use in Polycarp's time. Granted not everyone agreed with it, but the apostles knew they had to leave a written witness (Rom. 10; John 20:31; 1 John 5:13; 1 Peter and Paul). They aren't going to write and leave the compilation to chance.

 

[Standing Up]

"Is Christ divided?"

No, He/we are not.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Quit dodging.
Why does it say "dogma"?



.

It was a proposal, a hope of some bishops that I would be declared dogma.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why does it say "dogma"?

Dogma is doctrine that is infallibly true.

 

[sculleywr]

Keep in mind I'm not the one who trots out 2 Thes 2:15 about abiding the oral traditions extant in Paul's time. Which of course no one can answer (except to point to scripture). IOW, it's not my standard against which you're complaining, but against the justification used by OO EO RC to abide their contradictory traditions. To be clear, I'm all for scripture and tradition that ties to apostles (scripture). The ever-virgin idea is a good example. We don't find the idea in scripture of ever-virgin (except Artemis/Diana) applied to Mary. We do find the normal birth belief (came by water/blood John). We then also find this same normal birth belief in tradition (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem). Normal birth proves no more virginity; it proves His humanity. Not to mention the brothers of Christ (sons of Joseph/Mary) that also come from scripture and found in tradition. True enough we find the ever-virgin idea in tradition, but if we look, we find it in the Gnostic camp of Marcion, Valentinus, etc who thought Christ a phantom, a fake human, a ghost passing through Mary or out her side. So again, I'm all for scripture and traditions that tie to apostles. As to your specific question, I believe a case can be made that the NT canon was well in use in Polycarp's time. Granted not everyone agreed with it, but the apostles knew they had to leave a written witness (Rom. 10; John 20:31; 1 John 5:13; 1 Peter and Paul). They aren't going to write and leave the compilation to chance.

No. You're the one who misinterprets the meaning of the verse to be direct and unquestionable linkage. Since that is your interpretation, you have to link your table of contents to the Apostles. That is your standard. Not the standard claimed by any sane orthodox or catholic person. It's called moving the goalposts. Unless you're able to hit the goalposts, don't expect others to. So, oh ye holy establisher of goalposts, hit your target.

 

[Standing Up]

No. You're the one who misinterprets the meaning of the verse to be direct and unquestionable linkage. Since that is your interpretation, you have to link your table of contents to the Apostles. That is your standard. Not the standard claimed by any sane orthodox or catholic person. It's called moving the goalposts. Unless you're able to hit the goalposts, don't expect others to. So, oh ye holy establisher of goalposts, hit your target.

Well, EO OO RC all use the verse to justify their different dogmas. Follow [my] Tradition from whatever the source is all that boils down to.

I'm still asking for those oral traditions extant in Paul's time to which he said observe. We simply don't know them, you're right. We only know what's written. And I've already agreed the apostles first spoke and then wrote.

Point is Paul's statement is not some blank check for subsequent bishops to fill in, suggesting we should observe Traditions that source to the 7th century or 4th century or 19th century. The bishop lineage matters not. It's the "teach the same" that matters.

Lastly, it doesn't matter whether P has 30 denominations, while EO OO RC are 3. Same difference.

 

[sculleywr]

Well, EO OO RC all use the verse to justify their different dogmas. Follow [my] Tradition from whatever the source is all that boils down to. I'm still asking for those oral traditions extant in Paul's time to which he said observe. We simply don't know them, you're right. We only know what's written. And I've already agreed the apostles first spoke and then wrote. Point is Paul's statement is not some blank check for subsequent bishops to fill in, suggesting we should observe Traditions that source to the 7th century or 4th century or 19th century. The bishop lineage matters not. It's the "teach the same" that matters. Lastly, it doesn't matter whether P has 30 denominations, while EO OO RC are 3. Same difference.

And you set a standard your own beliefs fail to meet. So your argument is hypocritical in nature. It's saying "I know how to referee better than the refs on the Super Bowl", but never having refereed a pewee football game. So, choose a more realistic standard or else end your argument.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Root of Jesse

well, it's not dogma, but we do know she's mother of all Christians.
​

Quit dodging.
Why does it say "dogma"?



.

It was a proposal, a hope of some bishops that I would be declared dogma.

Surely that was a typo?

Dogma is doctrine that is infallibly true.

Ok, thanks.



.

 

[Albion]

Well, EO OO RC all use the verse to justify their different dogmas. Follow [my] Tradition from whatever the source is all that boils down to.

I'm still asking for those oral traditions extant in Paul's time to which he said observe. We simply don't know them, you're right. We only know what's written. And I've already agreed the apostles first spoke and then wrote.

Point is Paul's statement is not some blank check for subsequent bishops to fill in, suggesting we should observe Traditions that source to the 7th century or 4th century or 19th century. The bishop lineage matters not. It's the "teach the same" that matters.

Lastly, it doesn't matter whether P has 30 denominations, while EO OO RC are 3. Same difference.

Yes. That's a clear, sound, accurate exposition of the matter.

"Tradition" is only a manmade concept that allows men to invent doctrine and does not have anything to do with real tradition, even if it were not used to define anything religious.

 

[Standing Up]

And you set a standard your own beliefs fail to meet. So your argument is hypocritical in nature. It's saying "I know how to referee better than the refs on the Super Bowl", but never having refereed a pewee football game. So, choose a more realistic standard or else end your argument.

Three things.

I'm not the one who trotted out 2 Thes 2:15 to justify Tradition. When that happened, I asked per the quote for oral traditions in Paul's time. Answers were given, but they referred to scripture! or sourced back to the 7th century or 4th century. The truth is no one knows; they were oral. To prove our traditions, we have to go to the "it is written". The whole point I was making was not to call into question scripture, but to remind us that Paul was not writing a blank check to enable successor bishops an endless well from which to draw upon to justify their traditions.

Having said that, I am all for scripture first and tradition second. Find your dogma in scripture. Then go find it in tradition. Rather than the other way around. I understand some think scripture flowed from tradition. We know the apostles spoke and then wrote. I just don't think they or the Spirit would leave something unwritten that is necessary for us to clearly know our salvation.

As to scripture itself, for a number of reasons, I suggest after they spoke, they wrote it down so we might believe. I believe the NT canon was already formed and known in Polycarp's and Melito's times (c130-180). John, the last apostle to die, the ending bookend of the sons of thunder, most likely gave an edition to Polycarp his successor. Again, not everyone agrees, but what else is new in the Body?

 

[sculleywr]

Three things. I'm not the one who trotted out 2 Thes 2:15 to justify Tradition. When that happened, I asked per the quote for oral traditions in Paul's time. Answers were given, but they referred to scripture! or sourced back to the 7th century or 4th century. The truth is no one knows; they were oral. To prove our traditions, we have to go to the "it is written". The whole point I was making was not to call into question scripture, but to remind us that Paul was not writing a blank check to enable successor bishops an endless well from which to draw upon to justify their traditions. Having said that, I am all for scripture first and tradition second. Find your dogma in scripture. Then go find it in tradition. Rather than the other way around. I understand some think scripture flowed from tradition. We know the apostles spoke and then wrote. I just don't think they or the Spirit would leave something unwritten that is necessary for us to clearly know our salvation. As to scripture itself, for a number of reasons, I suggest after they spoke, they wrote it down so we might believe. I believe the NT canon was already formed and known in Polycarp's and Melito's times (c130-180). John, the last apostle to die, the ending bookend of the sons of thunder, most likely gave an edition to Polycarp his successor. Again, not everyone agrees, but what else is new in the Body?

No. You're the one who made up an impossible standard.

Therefore you win because I don't debate with people who require something they can't give.

Your faith is based on a tradition just as much as ours. Because it is based on a canon that is tradition, an interpretation that is tradition, and practices that are tradition.

This is the standard: II Thessalonians 2:15 means that Tradition is to be followed. It does NOT say that all Tradition we follow must be directly connected to the Apostles like some magic connect the dots game. That is you. Not us. Not the Apostles. And not Irenaeus.

Your argument is invalid and is not worthy of response because it's like justifying the following argument: God does not exist because He cannot move me off this podium. Come on God, move me. Prove me wrong!

 

[Albion]

Three things.

I'm not the one who trotted out 2 Thes 2:15 to justify Tradition. When that happened, I asked per the quote for oral traditions in Paul's time. Answers were given, but they referred to scripture! or sourced back to the 7th century or 4th century. The truth is no one knows; they were oral. To prove our traditions, we have to go to the "it is written". The whole point I was making was not to call into question scripture, but to remind us that Paul was not writing a blank check to enable successor bishops an endless well from which to draw upon to justify their traditions.

Having said that, I am all for scripture first and tradition second. Find your dogma in scripture. Then go find it in tradition. Rather than the other way around. I understand some think scripture flowed from tradition. We know the apostles spoke and then wrote. I just don't think they or the Spirit would leave something unwritten that is necessary for us to clearly know our salvation.

As to scripture itself, for a number of reasons, I suggest after they spoke, they wrote it down so we might believe. I believe the NT canon was already formed and known in Polycarp's and Melito's times (c130-180). John, the last apostle to die, the ending bookend of the sons of thunder, most likely gave an edition to Polycarp his successor. Again, not everyone agrees, but what else is new in the Body?

The only problem that I have with that is that it seems to blend "Holy Tradition,' i.e. religious innovations, with actual traditions. Whether the word came after the Apostles were teaching it or not, the teachings are not separate from Scripture or contrary to Scripture or a supplement to Scripture--and that's what "Tradition" is all about, whether or not there is any continuity.

 

[Standing Up]

No. You're the one who made up an impossible standard.

Therefore you win because I don't debate with people who require something they can't give.

Your faith is based on a tradition just as much as ours. Because it is based on a canon that is tradition, an interpretation that is tradition, and practices that are tradition.

This is the standard: II Thessalonians 2:15 means that Tradition is to be followed. It does NOT say that all Tradition we follow must be directly connected to the Apostles like some magic connect the dots game. That is you. Not us. Not the Apostles. And not Irenaeus.

Your argument is invalid and is not worthy of response because it's like justifying the following argument: God does not exist because He cannot move me off this podium. Come on God, move me. Prove me wrong!

Like I said, I don't view Paul's comment as a blank check upon which successor bishops are free to draw. Some groups do. They see tradition first and scripture outflowing from that.

I fall into the scripture first, then go find it in tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

The only problem that I have with that is that it seems to blend "Holy Tradition,' i.e. religious innovations, with actual traditions. Whether the word came after the Apostles were teaching it or not, the teachings are not separate from Scripture or contrary to Scripture or a supplement to Scripture--and that's what "Tradition" is all about, whether or not there is any continuity.

Well, that's the challenge. How do we know the difference? For my part, since we do not know oral tradition from Paul's time and we don't view his comment as a bishopric blank check, what are we left with? Scripture of course, but how about scripture first, then tradition? This is to say tradition must tie to apostles.

Sculleywr will say scripture came from tradition. So what? Again, that is not to open the door to some bishop blank check.

 

[sculleywr]

Like I said, I don't view Paul's comment as a blank check upon which successor bishops are free to draw. Some groups do. They see tradition first and scripture outflowing from that. I fall into the scripture first, then go find it in tradition.

And then you have Orthodoxy, where Traditions both Oral and Written are equal in force. The realization that Scripture is, itself, Tradition, is how it is taught in Orthodoxy. It is neither of the two extremes you Point to.

 

[MrMoe]

If negatively charged particles are true, why are they not united?

If positively charged particles are true, why are they not united?

If Batman and Superman fight for truth and justice, why are they not united?