[quote]Sloth wrote:
2Thes2:15 Does not list the books.[/quote]
Secondly, when asked why you accept the bible as containing the ‘true’ gospels, you quote from the bible as your justification.
Fixed:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
2Thes2:15 Does not list the books.[/quote]
It doesn’t need to for what I just wrote to be consistent.
If you can’t answer my question at the end, I don’t see how we can go any farther.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
2Thes2:15 Does not list the books.
Edit: And it also mentions oral traditions
15Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours
[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
2Thes2:15 Does not list the books.
Edit: And it also mentions oral traditions
15Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours
[/quote]
As you know, I already addressed this.
Address my last question, or we can’t continue.
Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep; and an idle soul shall suffer hunger.
(Pro 19:15)
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
2Thes2:15 Does not list the books.
Edit: And it also mentions oral traditions
15Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours
[/quote]
As you know, I already addressed this.[/quote]
No you haven’t, you go around in circles. I ask you how you know the books of the bible to be the true gospels and letters, and you quote the bible.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Address my last question, or we can’t continue.
Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep; and an idle soul shall suffer hunger.
(Pro 19:15)
[/quote]
My traditions are of Christ’s Apostolic Church which predated, and collected, the bible.
Answer the question:
Collecting the letters of the apostles, and calling it the bible, is in clear obedience to 2Thes2:15, which we have already discussed. You want to say that this process is, in itself, also a tradition. And if I allow for it, I must allow for all manner of tradition, whether they agree with the apostles writings or not. That is, kosher dietary laws, the need for a “holy” drainage system for the vessels used in the Mass, all the genuflecting, rules like the laity may eat the body of Christ, but only the priest is worthy to drink the blood of Christ, and on and on and on. These are therefore on par with the “tradition” of recognizing the apostolic writings as Scripture. Is that what you’re saying?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Answer the question:
Collecting the letters of the apostles, and calling it the bible, is in clear obedience to 2Thes2:15, which we have already discussed. You want to say that this process is, in itself, also a tradition. And if I allow for it, I must allow for all manner of tradition, whether they agree with the apostles writings or not. That is, kosher dietary laws, the need for a “holy” drainage system for the vessels used in the Mass, all the genuflecting, rules like the laity may eat the body of Christ, but only the priest is worthy to drink the blood of Christ, and on and on and on. These are therefore on par with the “tradition” of recognizing the apostolic writings as Scripture. Is that what your saying? [/quote]
Just did.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Answer the question:
Collecting the letters of the apostles, and calling it the bible, is in clear obedience to 2Thes2:15, which we have already discussed. You want to say that this process is, in itself, also a tradition. And if I allow for it, I must allow for all manner of tradition, whether they agree with the apostles writings or not. That is, kosher dietary laws, the need for a “holy” drainage system for the vessels used in the Mass, all the genuflecting, rules like the laity may eat the body of Christ, but only the priest is worthy to drink the blood of Christ, and on and on and on. These are therefore on par with the “tradition” of recognizing the apostolic writings as Scripture. Is that what your saying? [/quote]
Just did.
[/quote]
So you mean YES to the above question?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Answer the question:
Collecting the letters of the apostles, and calling it the bible, is in clear obedience to 2Thes2:15, which we have already discussed. You want to say that this process is, in itself, also a tradition. And if I allow for it, I must allow for all manner of tradition, whether they agree with the apostles writings or not. That is, kosher dietary laws, the need for a “holy” drainage system for the vessels used in the Mass, all the genuflecting, rules like the laity may eat the body of Christ, but only the priest is worthy to drink the blood of Christ, and on and on and on. These are therefore on par with the “tradition” of recognizing the apostolic writings as Scripture. Is that what your saying? [/quote]
Just did.
[/quote]
So you mean YES to the above question?[/quote]
No, I mean my faith starts with the authoritative Church. Where does your faith that the bible contains the true gospels and epistles come from?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Answer the question:
Collecting the letters of the apostles, and calling it the bible, is in clear obedience to 2Thes2:15, which we have already discussed. You want to say that this process is, in itself, also a tradition. And if I allow for it, I must allow for all manner of tradition, whether they agree with the apostles writings or not. That is, kosher dietary laws, the need for a “holy” drainage system for the vessels used in the Mass, all the genuflecting, rules like the laity may eat the body of Christ, but only the priest is worthy to drink the blood of Christ, and on and on and on. These are therefore on par with the “tradition” of recognizing the apostolic writings as Scripture. Is that what your saying? [/quote]
Just did.
[/quote]
So you mean YES to the above question?[/quote]
No, I mean my faith starts with the authoritative Church. Where does your faith that the bible contains the true gospels and epistles come from?
[/quote]
Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
So if you find a tradition of the church contradicts a plain reading of the bible, do you chose the church tradition over the bible?
Remember, in answering no, you have just stated that traditions such as I’ve listed above are not on par the the “tradition” of recognizing the apostolic writings.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Answer the question:
Collecting the letters of the apostles, and calling it the bible, is in clear obedience to 2Thes2:15, which we have already discussed. You want to say that this process is, in itself, also a tradition. And if I allow for it, I must allow for all manner of tradition, whether they agree with the apostles writings or not. That is, kosher dietary laws, the need for a “holy” drainage system for the vessels used in the Mass, all the genuflecting, rules like the laity may eat the body of Christ, but only the priest is worthy to drink the blood of Christ, and on and on and on. These are therefore on par with the “tradition” of recognizing the apostolic writings as Scripture. Is that what your saying? [/quote]
Just did.
[/quote]
So you mean YES to the above question?[/quote]
No, I mean my faith starts with the authoritative Church. Where does your faith that the bible contains the true gospels and epistles come from?
[/quote]
Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
So if you find a tradition of the church contradicts a plain reading of the bible, do you chose the church tradition over the bible?[/quote]
I know of none, so I wouldn’t know. I still want to know why you have faith that you’re reading the true gospels and letters, without circularly quoting the bible.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Remember, in answering no, you have just stated that traditions such as I’ve listed above are not on par the the “tradition” of recognizing the apostolic writings.[/quote]
That’s nonsense. The tradition to recognize the bible as you’re holding it today, is not in the bible. It’s extra-biblical. It’s bald-faced tradition, that’s it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know of none, so I wouldn’t know. I still want to know why you have faith that you’re reading the true gospels and letters, with circularly quoting the bible.
[/quote]
I have already allowed that you may call recognizing which are apostolic writings as a kind of tradition, although I see it as in keeping with what Paul required.
You seem to be saying if I look to the bible to tell me how to understand the bible, I’m engaging in circular reasoning. Is that correct? I cannot use what the bible has taught me (a man) to understand how the bible should be understood, or even what letters are apostolic, but should rather listen to the authorized position of the church (made up of men)?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Remember, in answering no, you have just stated that traditions such as I’ve listed above are not on par the the “tradition” of recognizing the apostolic writings.[/quote]
That’s nonsense. The tradition to recognize the bible as you’re holding it today, is not in the bible. It’s extra-biblical. It’s bald-faced tradition, that’s it.
[/quote]
But you just answered no, you did not think they were the same. Are you changing your mind, and now believe they are the same?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I have already allowed that you may call recognizing which are apostolic writings as a kind of tradition…[/quote], mmhmm [quote]although I see it as in keeping with what Paul required.[/quote] Sure, after accepting that what Paul said actually reflects the truth, based on tradition.
Men wrote and collected the scripture. Men then passed it down aaaallll the way to you. You then accepted that these were true gospels and letters relating to one Jesus the Christ.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know of none, so I wouldn’t know. I still want to know why you have faith that you’re reading the true gospels and letters, with circularly quoting the bible.
[/quote]
I have already allowed that you may call recognizing which are apostolic writings as a kind of tradition, although I see it as in keeping with what Paul required.
You seem to be saying if I look to the bible to tell me how to understand the bible, I’m engaging in circular reasoning. Is that correct? I cannot use what the bible has taught me (a man) to understand how the bible should be understood, or even what letters are apostolic, but should rather listen to the authorized position of the church (made up of men)?[/quote]
Let’s do this. Here’s a list of traditions:
-the process of recognizing the apostolic writings.
-kosher dietary law
-genuflecting
-only the priest can drink the blood of Christ.
Are these substantially the same, yes or no?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know of none, so I wouldn’t know. I still want to know why you have faith that you’re reading the true gospels and letters, with circularly quoting the bible.
[/quote]
I have already allowed that you may call recognizing which are apostolic writings as a kind of tradition, although I see it as in keeping with what Paul required.
You seem to be saying if I look to the bible to tell me how to understand the bible, I’m engaging in circular reasoning. Is that correct? I cannot use what the bible has taught me (a man) to understand how the bible should be understood, or even what letters are apostolic, but should rather listen to the authorized position of the church (made up of men)?[/quote]
Let’s do this. Here’s a list of traditions:
-the process of recognizing the apostolic writings.
-kosher dietary law
-genuflecting
-only the priest can drink the blood of Christ.
Are these substantially the same, yes or no?[/quote]
Nope.