Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[sunlover1]

No apples in Australia?

 

[Montalban]

Nice question.
.

What's the nice answer?

 

[Montalban]

No apples in Australia?

Do you mean like Granny Smiths?

 

[Montalban]

Hey now lol

I've been googling this. Now I've got it

You're talking to a guy who's computer is so old it's coal-fired, and steam-powered.

 

[Montalban]

Me thinks Harry Callahan was Paul reincarnated

Harry (Paul) Callahan: I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking "did he have six books in his canon or only five?"

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What happened in the interim? Jesus using parables, but they weren't yet written down.

Sola Scritpurists would be in there with the Pharisees, dismissing anything not 'written'.

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."

 

[sunlover1]

Do you mean like Granny Smiths?

Mmm, very good choice.

I've been googling this. Now I've got it

You're talking to a guy who's computer is so old it's coal-fired, and steam-powered.

Well then you better keep the dictionary nearby LOL
But one of these days if you need to restock your computer,
I do recommend the MacBookPro.
It's much simpler.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No apples in Australia?

Lots of outbacks, crocks, kangaroos, big knives and a spiffy accent

YouTube - Is That a Knife

 

[Montalban]

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

There's modern-day Pharisees who would deny it unless it was written down.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What's the nice answer?

Ask it in a thread that permits a response and you might get one.... but do it where Mormons can post because only they have any concern or interest in it and it has relevance only to that singular denomination.

.

 

[ivebeenshown]

No, although God may ADD to His corpus of Scripture.
If you were God, perhaps you could, too.
But as you know, that issue is moot here. This thread is not about what is and is not Scripture or about why none on the planet agrees with your denomination on that issue - just itself exclusively.

I'm not talking about 'the corpus of Scripture'.

To answer it yet AGAIN, yes - self declaring self to be the Voice of God, infallible/unaccountable with the unmitigated POWER to exempt self from the issue of truth and instead require quiet,docilic submission to self is rejecting the Rule of Scripture

Does Jesus not match all of these attributes? He declared himself to speak the Words of God, infallible (and I guess unaccountable) with undiminished POWER of GOD to require quiet and docile submission to WHATEVER he says, whether what he says is written down at the time or not? Is that not rejecting the Rule of Scripture?

Sure, what he said may have later been 'added to the corpus of Scripture', but that is not what I am discussing, especially because at the time he spoke it, it was NOT Scripture.

 

[sunlover1]

There's modern-day Pharisees who would deny it unless it was written down.

As Jesus was doing ...
Had they STUCK with what was written,
GOD wouldn't have said to them:

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them,
Full well ye reject the commandment of God,
that ye may keep your own tradition.

Matthew 15 Because of your tradition, then,
you have disregarded the authority of God's word.

Mark 7:13...setting aside the word of God for your
tradition that ye delivered; and many such like things ye do

 

[OpenDoor]

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

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Does Jesus not match all of these attributes?

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.

The issue of the size of the corpus is MOOT to the rule (a concept you either ignore or - in spite of clear and obvious information - don't understand).

AGAIN - no one is saying that Jesus normed all that God says via the Rule of Scripture (and it's absurd to keep insisting the praxis of the Rule of Scripture so teaches - it doesn't teach ANYTHING); but the only rule He DID use WAS Scripture - and OFTEN (yes!) even for His own teaching (but - yes - not always). The Rule of Scripture is for US - where did you read that it is rather for GOD'S use? I know a LOT of the Catholic strawmen on this (I'm a former Catholic, and once posted as a bit of a Catholic apologist - I used to use some these mischaracterizations myself) but many of yours aren't even Catholic misconceptions - they are just baseless.

Yes - IF you were LDS or IF you were living during the period of 1400 BC to 100 AD, your point would had least be valid - although ENTIRELY MOOT to the issue here. Checked your calendar? Aren't you Catholic?

My counsel for you is to read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ Read all the words there. All this is addressed there - simply, clearly. Your many confusing, confused misconceptions about the Rule of Scripture simply make discussion of it with difficult at best - if you would read what it is, that REALLY would help. And IF you have an alternative norma normans for us, give it - whatever it is that you suggest is MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically embraced (say by more than 50,000 denominations) and MORE historically embraced (say before 1400 BC) than is Scripture - tell us what your alternative is for the norma normans in the norming of disputed dogmas among us - tell us what that SHOULD be if not Scripture. OR is it accountability you reject (in the singular case of ONE teacher among us - the RC denomination)?







.

 

[sunlover1]

Does Jesus not match all of these attributes? He declared himself to speak the Words of God, infallible (and I guess unaccountable) with undiminished POWER of GOD to require quiet and docile submission to WHATEVER he says, whether what he says is written down at the time or not? Is that not rejecting the Rule of Scripture? .

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.

 

[OpenDoor]

Just a reminder, this thread is meant to be about results, not theories. We want to see the proof in the pudding, so to speak.

Then we probably wont truly know until the Lord comes, or we die...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

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.





.

 

[OpenDoor]

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.





.

It's not hard to see that Oral Tradition cannot perfectly preserve doctrine, ask a RC, EO, OO, or LDS which is the true Oral Tradition...

 

[OpenDoor]

Something I always wanted to know from churches that teach that theirs is the One True Church. Do you believe that an honest reading of the scriptures would lead a person to your church?

Edit: If yes, do you believe that a person who reads the scriptures and does not come to the same conclusion (as you) is being dishonest in their reading of the scriptures?

 

[Dark_Lite]

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.





.

You never fully converted to Catholicism, if I remember correctly. And for the 208942389047th time, the apostolic churches do not just make up doctrine and tell everyone to believe in it. This misrepresentation of yours gets very old. The model of Tradition is "accountable" to historical evidences. This historical evidence includes everything from writings to proclamations. It is an institution being preserved through that evidence.

The LDS comparison remains unfounded, as Mormonism has no historical evidence to back up its existence. There is no evidence to suggest that the Jews got on a boat and settled in America. There is no historical evidence to suggest a "great apostasy." There is, however, plenty of evidence for the existence of a Christian Church whose model of authority was based on an episcopate.

The cult comparison is completely unfounded as well. Cults are unaccountable because they break from the establishment and start their own establishment. In fact, this applies to your LDS comparison and your cult comparison.

Cultic thinking is not simply adherence to an authority that places itself on a high pedestal. It's adherence to authority that has no verifiable basis. The authority claims it has a basis, but when examined, there isn't really a basis. At least, there is no verifiable basis. The apostolic churches have a verifiable basis of historical evidence. That is why your analogies fail. You continually claim they are the same, but they are not.

History is the basis on which Tradition rests. The LDS and cults do not have that same basis.