Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[MrPolo]

I'd be pleased to compare the "unity" of WELS with RCUS (both embracing the practice of Sola Scriptura) with the "unity" of the RCC and LDS

And I'd be please to point out that WELS and RCUS nowhere remotely constitute the totality of sola scripturists.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

READ what I said. It has been ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY twisted to "imply" what was never stated OR implied.

i
No, it hasn't. When you continually compare LDS and the older, mainline Christian commununions, you are implying if not overtly stating that there is parity. that EO is like LDS.

If my wife has dark hair, and so does Rosie O'Donnell, and I say something to the effect of "you and Rosie and so and so" I will be assuredly sleeping on the couch that night. Likewise, if I compare you and Elton John and the guys from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, you might take exception.

Maybe.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Indeed...although I would say Josiah doesn't just try to discredit the Apostolic Churches by association

I didn't mention the "Apostolic Churches" nor did I state ANYTHING about "discrediting." You know that.

he tries to discredit any church that claims to have the truth on the basis that other claimants even exist.

You have NO IDEA what I "try" to do - only the words I post (unless you are claiming to have the divine attribute of being all-knowing, and I'm SURE you don't).

I didn't attempt to "discredit" anything. I stated my disagreement with the rubric that since self alone agrees with self alone, ergo self is correct or more virtious or more divinely protected or unaccountable/infallible/exempt from truth.

His argument at it's core is against the Apostles. For they claim to have truth.

It's REALLY hard to have a discussion when what is posted is entirely ignored and instead, entirely foreign thoughts and words are imputed and then rebuked...

I think what GOD says is true - including when He conveys that via His penmen (a teaching of the Catholic Church - where I learned it). Are the Apostles infallible? An interesting question for another thread (I remember one Apostle - which one was it - was called Satan, and that much of Jesus' ministry was CORRECTING Apostles... but I can' say more here without violating rules). The issue I addressed is whether a denomination is correct because it is in unity only with itself. You know that.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And I'd be please to point out that WELS and RCUS nowhere remotely constitute the totality of sola scripturists.

And nor does the RCC and LDS constitute the totality of those who reject it (and any other rule) and instead claim to be THE infallible/unaccountable voice of God.




.

 

[joyfulthanks]

Edited: Late to the party. Decided to remove my comment until I had time to read the whole thread.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Addressed SEVERAL times already.... Jesus (who is God) was ADDING to the corpus. God may do that. If you are God, so can you. In ADDING to the corpus, God is not violating a rule FOR US today.

Jesus was not 'adding to the corpus of Scripture' by speaking. His words were not added to the corpus until they were written.

 

[brinny]

Even the Judean Pharisees had a hard time with the parables of Jesus

(NKJV) Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Matthew 13:35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying "I will open My mouth in parables, I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world."

ROFLOL!!!! Toooooo funnnnn-ny

 

[Montalban]

Edited: Late to the party. Decided to remove my comment until I had time to read the whole thread.

Good luck with that. I'm waiting for the movie

 

[Montalban]

To the OP-
Video taped, photographed, or written, is probably the best way (for man) to preserve anything.

One doens't even have to have seen it happen. Experts can be called into court to give opinion on what they believe happened.

 

[Montalban]

Except Jesus didn't at all declare Himself to speak ANYthing except what
he had "heard" from the Father.
Which is why I turn to the Words of God as well.

I thought you only turned to the WRITTEN Word

 

[Montalban]

I agree.....

When I signed my lease for the apartment here, it is a WRITTEN DOCUMENT. In objective words, knowable to all and alterable by none. In it is a very interesting clause that reads, "This contract supersedes any other agreements - oral or otherwise - by either party." Written trumps oral.

God "wrote" morality in the 'hearts' of all people. Why, shortly after literacy come to the Hebrews, did God write the Ten Commandments - literally in stone? Why did the Hebrews point to THAT as the norma normans rather than the "hearts" of each individual? Just questions, I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to them....

But I do know this: When each individual (such as the RCC or LDS or Mary Baker Eddy or me) insists that what I "feel" or "think" supersedes (or is even equal) to what God wrote - Houston, we've got a problem! My study of the cults, of the early LDS (and yes - as a Catholic of my Church), I saw the consequence of this. But that's just MY perspective- nothing more.





.

There seems to be a number of armchair lawyers here.

Written accounts are of course accepted. But eye witnesses are also accepted.

As I noted above, a person can 'witness' (as giving expert testimony) even if they weren't present at the time of the incident.

 

[Uphill Battle]

There seems to be a number of armchair lawyers here.

Written accounts are of course accepted. But eye witnesses are also accepted.

As I noted above, a person can 'witness' (as giving expert testimony) even if they weren't present at the time of the incident.

both written records and verbal accounts can be dismissed, if the listener or reader doesn't believe it. I don't think the fact that a court could agree with either format, as definitive proof for either side of the argument.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Written accounts are of course accepted. But eye witnesses are also accepted.

Their WORDS are accepted - if they are alive to give them.

Rarely can a dead man give oral testimony.

In any case, I think generally a written document would be accepted above oral testimony of one dead and cannot speak.



.

 

[Montalban]

Isn't that exactly the same argument which is being used against SS?

Yes. Sola scripturists, at the end of the day are not able to prove their argument so they revert to an attack on tradition to show 'division'. So SS's best argument becomes one of "Sure, we can't know the truth, but then neither can you"

But unfortunately those supporting SS keep bringing up over and over again this attack on tradition.

If you hang around you're sure to see the same people bringing it up time and time again.

However in saying that the problem is actually much worse for SS's than for traditionalists.

The divisions amongst traditionalists aren't anywhere near the same magnitude of SS's.

Each SS, being their own authority on interpretation means that there are in fact 100,000's of different truths, as oppsed to the 3 or 4 amongst traditionalists.

But in essence you are right, they are the same argument.

These threads go cyclically.

I'm still waiting for any SS to show when their canon was developed, and by whom (although one said it was just done by God).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
I'm still waiting for any SS to show when their canon was developed, and by whom (although one said it was just done by God).

From what I hear, it was the RCC that put together the Canon we all use today

http://www.christianforums.com/t7359399/#post51371012
Catholic Church and the Bible

Response:
It's called, "Where we got the Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church" by Rev Henry G Graham.

Catholic apologists love it. However it doesn't have any notes to proove where Rev Graham got his information so it still falls into that "personal opinion" thing you were talking about. But there is plenty of praise for the Roman Church and insults of the protestant traditions within. Just notice as you read that all of the credit for the bible seems to go to men...I disagree with the overall view of reality drawn by the book. However, it has received high marks within the Catholic community.

Enjoy.

David

 

[Montalban]

Their WORDS are accepted - if they are alive to give them.

Not just the 'words', but the witness themselves. The witness can be cross-examined and their testimony tested.

Rarely can a dead man give oral testimony.

Even dead people can provide evidence. There are (non-written) signs that may be used to determine when they died and how they died.

In any case, I think generally a written document would be accepted above oral testimony of one dead and cannot speak.

That depends.

You do not seem to understand evidence. Evidence can be excluded, based on rules of admissability. Even admissable evidence still has to be 'weighed' and can be tested. And here an eyewitness subject to cross-examination is important. It's why there's been controversy here in sexual-related crimes when the testimony is given via a video link (to protect the witness from having to go to court to face the person who's assaulted her).

Many common law systems have a test for 'best evidence'*. Usually this does mean original documents are preferred to say, a duplicate of a document.

In my state (New South Wales), and in our Commonwealth this test is no longer the basis, which allows for electronic copies of records to be accepted. Thus even a written document need not be accepted. An image of the document can be


*(Our state's Evidence Act mirrors that of the Commonwealth's. Every other state in Australia still hold to that principle)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But unfortunately those supporting SS keep bringing up over and over again this attack on tradition.

The question is WHAT is the more RELIABLE method of preserving something. I hardly see giving an opinion on this as an "attack" on anything.

Each SS, being their own authority on interpretation means that there are in fact 100,000's of different truths

1. I fail to see the connection to the issue of this thread....

2. Ask 50,000 people that regard self as unaccountable/infallible and the Voice of God and you're going to get a lot of different views, too. It is a natural consequence of your rubric: self pointing to self as the authority rather than to some objective, knowable, unalterable rule outside and above and beyond self.

3. As you know, embracing Scripture as the Rule (rather than self) has nothing to do with hermeneutics, thus your issue of "interpretation" is diversionary. And of course, self has to "interpret" the views of self, too - you have same situation




.

 

[Montalban]

From what I hear, it was the RCC that put together the Canon we all use today

They're more than welcome to make that claim, and of course it can be disputed, but at least that's better than days and days of no such claims being made by SS's, despite the fact I keep asking them.

 

[Montalban]

The question is WHAT is the more RELIABLE method of preserving something. I hardly see giving an opinion on this as an "attack" on anything.

Perhaps 'attack' has harsher meaning in your eyes.

But in debate, I don't believe it does.

There's a great scene in "Cry Freedom" (and it's also in the book "Biko") set in the 1970s where South African Steve Biko is in court. He's been pressing to get black South Africans to confront the Apartheid regime. The state takes him to court over his writings.

The government's barrister is accusing Biko of inciting violence against the state.

Biko claims he's not.

The barrister says something like "But in your own pamphlets you urge confrontation".

Biko says "You and I are now in confrontation, but I see no violence"

1. I fail to see the connection to the issue of this thread....

2. Ask 50,000 people that regard self as unaccountable/infallible and the Voice of God and you're going to get a lot of different views, too. It is a natural consequence of your rubric: self pointing to self as the authority rather than to some objective, knowable, unalterable rule outside and above and beyond self.

3. As you know, embracing Scripture as the Rule (rather than self) has nothing to do with hermeneutics, thus your issue of "interpretation" is diversionary. And of course, self has to "interpret" the views of self, too - you have same situation

This is one of those testing method things again!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Not just the 'words', but the witness themselves. The witness can be cross-examined and their testimony tested.

Yes. Present Matthew and we can ask him. But, as you know, all the Apostles are dead. Have been for quite some time now. I don't know how you are going to call them and cross-examine them; could you explain that? How can one dead for over 1900 years give oral testimony and be cross-examined, even if such were regarded as more reliable than what God wrote?

And here an eyewitness subject to cross-examination is important.

I see.... How do you propose that we cross-examine St. James or St. John? Even if you think their oral testimony would "trump" the written testimony of God and would be more objectively knowable than what God wrote?



.