Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To answer that question requires asking another, related question - why were certain things written down and others not?
It could be that the things not written down were unknown ideas invented later. Or, they may simply not have been controversial. Much of what was written in the New Testament and in other early Church writings was addressing various problems and/or false teachings, or in basic catechetical instruction. If a given teaching was not an issue, or something a novice didn't need to learn off the bat, it likely did not get addressed often (if at all) in writing.
Iraeneus gave a list of canonical books towards the end of the second century, and it pretty much coincides with the NT as we have it today. The Doctrine of the Trinity predates the fourth century, and the Council of Nicea was convened because Arius had broken with an already accepted orthodoxy. Becides which, the Trinity is believed because it is implicit in the New Testament. The Assumption of Mary isn't.
Even if it was not in the New Testament, you would think somebody would have mentioned it prior to the fourth century. Why isn't it in the Didache, for instance?
Even if it was not in the New Testament, you would think somebody would have mentioned it prior to the fourth century. Why isn't it in the Didache, for instance?
Since you won't and can't prove that you have another source of incontrovertible truth;
How about you just provide one doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture.
Where is the proof?The teachings and traditions of Jesus Christ, preserved by His Church for 2000 years. This INCLUDES SCRIPTURE.
God made a Church, that Church is the incontrovertible truth. Through that Church came the Bible. Jesus performed works and gave commands, which are preserved through this Church started by Jesus.
Where is one doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture?
You who think it wrong to capitalize God's Word, capitalize Traditions thinking you can fool us into thinking it is something incontrovertibly holy from God.<Staff Edit>
I did not throw anything out. As I stated, if the Bible does not contain the Traditions that paul is talking about, where then can we find them? Obviously they were important enough for Paul to write about them, reminding them to hold true to them. That leads to only 1 answer, the Church.
Already did though. Holy Traditions cannot stand on its own, and neither can Holy Scripture. You need all 3 legs for that stool to stand. That 3rd is the authority of the Church, that was started by Jesus. Jesus also only started 1 Church, that I laid out in the OP.
Whaevet they got right isn't because they were Catholic.Who told you which books belong in the New Testament?(Answer: The Catholic Church)
How do you know what is scripture without tradition?
I don't accept your definition for one thing, and your conclusion that multiple interpretations are due to whatever the authority is, is patently wrong.I enjoy how you come across in your response, thank you. Let me answer in kind.
I have never disagreed that scripture is an authority, because it is the divinely inspired written word of God. I am saying that it is not the SOLE authority or HIGHEST authority, which is what SS claims.
I agree that all denominations believe in the importance of scripture. Once again I have never said otherwise. It does not state that scripture is the highest authority. Most verses in the Bible in reference to scripture are referring to the OT, which the apostles used to show the world that Jesus was the Messiah foretold in the OT.
I apologize if my wording is confusing. I am referring to everything in regards to doctrine and practice.
It does not. Scripture does not support the concept of SS. Scripture supports both scripture and tradition.
Tradition does not compete with Scripture. They work together, along with the Church, to form the 3 legs of authority that I posted at the bottom of my OP.
This is with the issues of the concept of SS, not just the definition. I started the thread with the definition so that we all might start at the same understanding. SS leads to the arguments about authority, by claiming that it is the highest authority.
It is the logical conclusion in terms of authority. Because there are so many different denominations, all claiming to be true, all following SS, obviously this means they are all right. But ask a Baptist how the Lutherans interpret scripture and they will say wrongly, and visa-versa.
Yes He did, He made the promise to all believers (the church).Of course it was. Jesus promised that the Church would be led in all truth.
Jesus didn't make such a promise to Martin Luther or John Calvin.
Yes He did, He made the promise to all believers (the church).
Actually, it is implicitly found in scripture.
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-assumption-of-mary
Nothing there. Just attempts to explain away scriptural passages, and to say that they don't mean what they appear to mean.
By way of contrast, the divinity of Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit, are all attested to in the NT. Along with monotheism, which is also attested to in the NT, the Trinity follows from that.
Again - why should it be?
Because if that doctrine is so important that the Pope lays it down as something Catholics must believe, you would think that the divine authorof the Bible would arrange for at least a mention of it to appear somewhere.
As I just mentioned, it is likely that Mary was still alive when most of the books of the New Testament were written.
Mary was likely 15 when Jesus was born, so in AD 60 she would have been about 75 years old.
Well, Jesus was born in or before 4BC, and John's Gospel is usually dated to the nineties. Which would make Mary at least 109 at the time. Luke maybe a decade before that, which would have made Mary at least 99. Even Mark would have her in her eighties.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?