Almost every "study Bible" in existence has a preface to each of the books. Most have a supposed date of authorship.If you have one, take a look, write them down.. compare.
What part of "The events taking place in the epistles were in the early days of the church." don't you understand to ask me that question?
The issue is what's being claimed regarding it. Atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman and Muslim scholars use such info to discredit scripture. And I'm sure what ARBITER01 meant is that there's nothing written about the beginning of and the earliest days of the church that predates what the apostles wrote.
Sacred Tradition is not inspired, inspiration is a gift associated with the holy scriptures alone. Sacred Tradition is public revelation from God, it is true, and hence it is infallible, but it is not inspired into writing as are the holy scriptures.
Since the events predate the record of them in writing it follows with infallible logic that people did the things written about before the writing took place. So, we know that Jesus lived and taught before the gospel were recorded. We also know that the events recorded in The Acts of the Apostles took place before the book was written, consequently we know that many churches were established before the book of Acts was written. And because churches existed, we know that the handed down their practises and spoke about their beliefs before these were documented in letters, books, or any other writings. Thus, your claim that, "The only way to know that celebrating the Eucharist, baptizing etc was taking place, is because that's what scripture says", is in error because we know of the activities by means of handing them down by example before any scripture describing them or explaining them or even naming them was written.
They won't be able to.
That's easy to answer; it is the Apostolic tradition that were handed down, some being eventually written, that you have complained about in so many of your posts in this thread and in others. You have mentioned the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary, the immaculate conception of Blessed Mary, the divine motherhood of Blessed Mary has been complained about by others, so it too is in this short list, and last of all, the assumption of Blessed Mary bodily into heaven - a little like Enoch and Elijah.
The problem is that you can not cite what's been handed down by the apostles, by word of mouth only, sans scripture.
But you can not cite any evidence that those traditional views were established by the Apostles. You can claim it, but you can't provide any evidence for it because it doesn't exist. The nearest evidence you have available is not from the time of the Apostles, but rather from long afterwards.
That is not a problem; I make no claim that citations are possible because many sacred traditions are not written and citation requires writing.
Yes I can; each is a Dogma, each is well documented, and some have lovely paintings depicting the event.
