Search results

I bring this up because you seem to accept written tradition - what we call "Bible" - as infallible... What external evidence are you using to make this claim? Again, you are not realizing that what WE call the written words of the SO-CALLED apostle Paul are indeed a "tradition". I presume...

So did Paul also tell us the contents of Sacred Scriptures?

Do you know what a circular argument is? WHO decided which was "legit" and which were not?

[ I thought we were discussing the contents of the NT. Again, you are basing your argument on circular reasoning... I asked that you would please stop that, you are wasting my time. How can you base your "teaching of the NT" without an authoritative body to tell you WHAT IS THE NT/OT...

Really? Than you apparently have tossed out 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, 2,3 John, Jude from your bible...

It is interesting that you would say that the Church infallibly passed down written teachings, but not the oral ones. Why is that? It sounds like special pleading to me, while ignoring part of your own argument. We do not possess one single original autograph from any writing of the NT. Paul...

You appear totally ignorant to the history of the formulation of the Deutercanonical works into the Scripture canon. James was not recognized as Scripture upon being written. And that's the key - recognition. Most Scripture exegesis that I have read on this passage do not require that the...

Paul never states that only his written words are infallible. He considers what he passes down, both orally and written, to be worthy of belief - even if an angel came to tell a different teaching. As such, the burden is upon you to prove that only what HE wrote was intended to be infallible...

And so why would we assume that the Bible is also an infallible document? On what basis does the members of the Church recognize this? The first Christians were not as concerned with recording letters for future Christians and compiling a future Bible, but rather, in HANDING DOWN a set of...

That would seem at odds with the very fact of the existence of such Counciliar documents from the 4th century. Their very existence suggests otherwise. Now, we shall not quibble over "given" vs. "recognized". The historical effect points to a cause. Authority was not usurped quitely and...

Same here. My post above is more for some constructive thought. I will respond to you to clarify a few points. Which was my point. Individuals now or in the first century or in the 16th century (unless you were named "Martin Luther") didn't just "decide" that a letter was inspired by God...

Why did the first Christians think that some personal letters written by a man named Paul were "the Word of God", authoritative for Christians of the day and the future - and why THAT determination was authoritative - as well... Who were "they" to tell Christians what was the "Word of God"? It...

Scriptures ARE revelation from God (so the claim goes)!!! Note my point is that all men can come through rational thought that God exists - but Trinity depends upon revelation. Hebrew Scriptures are not the rational thoughts of some men. Furthermore, that passage is pretty vague, it can...

I agree, faith in the transcendant God of the universe, not necessarily Jesus of Nazareth, since He was incarnate in a fixed time and place not known to all men. Yes, good point. That is why I am of the mind not to be so absolute - one must know Jesus of Nazareth in the historical sense...

WHEW!!!

Does a person have to know about Jesus of Nazareth's historical sacrifice on the cross to be saved? Or does God judge a person by what he knows and how he reaches out to the transcendent - where applicable? Do you think the God of mercy and love condemns people to hell because they were...

LOL! I guess I didn't get that memo...

I think we agree. God is not going to judge people because they didn't know about Jesus of Nazareth, which is what SOME people claim - one MUST know and declare Jesus as their personal savior to enter heaven. Clearly, that condemns NUMEROUS people to eternal hell for an unjust reason. I think...

I agree about knowing about God, but George was talking about Jesus of Nazareth. Clearly, Paul doesn't think everyone knows about Jesus Christ... Regards

Yes, thanks again for proving my point. You still don't get that "reject" is not equal to "don't know about". Believes not = reject. How can you reject something you don't know about? "Over your head". Yea, that describes it.