ECT NO, THE BIBLE IS NOT THE CHRISTIAN'S ONLY AUTHORITY

[genuineoriginal]

The Greek word for “philosophy,” philosophia, literally means “love of wisdom”.

In other words, everything that comes from the "magisterium".
Thank you for proving I was right.

GO's interpretation of Colossians 2:8 is a cheap foolish attempt to ridicule the Catholic Church. His woefull* interpretation of verse 2:8 practically murdered the scripture.

No, I looked at the context, which you did not do, and it accurately portrays the Roman Catholic sect's tradition.

If GO, checks Psalm 101:7 and Proverbs 6:16-19, he will see that there are consequences for "a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren".

According to those verses, the magisterium is in for a world of hurt at the judgment.

 

[Cruciform]

Prove the necisity to us of Paul's inclusion do all future traditions. You made a positve assertive statement so it is up to prove your position. Surly as a philosopher you understand why it s up to you to do this.

Your "positive assertive statement":

"...it is not logical to state that Paul's reference to tradition necessarly includes ALL traditions that Rome would introduce over the following centuries."​

Post your proof.


As for my proof, it's already been stated in Posts #45, #49, #62, and #139 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[genuineoriginal]

Your "positive assertive statement":

...it is not logical to state that Paul's reference to tradition necessarly includes ALL traditions that Rome would introduce over the following centuries.​

Post your proof.

Paul told the Thessalonian believers to, "hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

You keep saying that Paul was telling the Thessalonian believers that they were to keep the traditions that they were not taught.

It appears that your ability to use the brain that God created for you to use is somewhat lacking.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

See post#1

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your "positive assertive statement":

"...it is not logical to state that Paul's reference to tradition necessarly includes ALL traditions that Rome would introduce over the following centuries."​

Post your proof.


As for my proof, it's already been stated in Posts #45, #49, #62, and #139 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Did you really study logic in school? You made a positive statement that necessarily Paul's statement included all future traditions. I pointed out that your logic was wrong. There is a difference between stating what expect to be accepted as truth (positve assertion) and pointing the that the logical basis for your statement is wrong (rebuttal).

So once again we see that philosophical education has failed to teach you the difference between a positive assertive statement and a rebuttal.

The burden of proof remains with you.

 

[CabinetMaker]

See post#1

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

 

[Cruciform]

Did you really study logic in school? You made a positive statement that necessarily Paul's statement included all future traditions. I pointed out that your logic was wrong. There is a difference between stating what expect to be accepted as truth (positve assertion) and pointing the that the logical basis for your statement is wrong (rebuttal).

We both posted positive assertions, and I have proven mine (see Post #222). Still waiting for yours.

 

[CabinetMaker]

We both posted positive assertions, and I have proven mine (see Post #222). Still waiting for yours.

No, you posted a positive assertion, I posted rebuttal based on your use of flawed logic

 

[Cruciform]

No, you posted a positive assertion, I posted rebuttal based on your use of flawed logic

Your "rebuttal" is itself a positive assertion. Waiting for your proof.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your "rebuttal" is itself a positive assertion. Waiting for your proof.

The lengths you will go to avoid answering a question never cease to amaze me. I rebutted your statement. I gave my support. It is an illogical statement to state that Paul necessarily included all future traditions in his letter. Paul's reference in his letter was specifically past tense, therefore, it necessarily does not include future traditions. There is also the logic problem of saying practices that do not yet exist are traditions.

 

[genuineoriginal]

We both posted positive assertions, and I have proven mine (see Post #222). Still waiting for yours.

Are you claiming that the LACK of proof you posted to support your argument is actually proof that supports CabinetMaker's position?

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

The Bible is the final authority for all doctrine. If a doctrine contradicts the Bible, the doctrine in question is false. No question.

This so obvious, also. Spiritual blindness is powerful. You can show the spiritually blind clear scripture they refuse to believe and obey, and they'll not be able to see this, see the simple truth before their eyes! They will even choose the lies, it pretty clear it's not God working on their hearts.

It's unlike anything else on earth, knowledge of God. One can study various human disciplines of knowledge, like understand a math equation that becomes obvious, understand with your own mind, through your own efforts, but, truly, without the Holy Spirit, all you see are people stumbling around and running into walls.

Matthew 15:14 ...And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

 

[Cruciform]

The lengths you will go to avoid answering a question never cease to amaze me.

It's already been answered (Post #222).

Oh, and right back at you.

It is an illogical statement to state that Paul necessarily included all future traditions in his letter.

That's your positive assertion. Now go ahead and post your proof.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

It's already been answered (Post #222).

Oh, and right back at you.


That's your positive assertion. Now go ahead and post your proof.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I already have. Several times. Since you can't seem to see or read anything you disagree with, let me help you see it this time. When Paul was speaking of traditions, he was speaking in the past tense. As such, he necessarily was not speaking about any future traditions.

Now it's your turn to prove your statement.

 

[Cruciform]

I already have. Several times. Since you can't seem to see or read anything you disagree with...

Pot, meet Kettle.

...let me help you see it this time. When Paul was speaking of traditions, he was speaking in the past tense. As such, he necessarily was not speaking about any future traditions.

I saw it just fine, and had already corrected it in previous posts (see Post #222 for a reference).

Now it's your turn to prove your statement.

See above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[PhilipJames]

Hello WLJ,

This so obvious, also. Spiritual blindness is powerful. You can show the spiritually blind clear scripture they refuse to believe and obey, and they'll not be able to see this, see the simple truth before their eyes!
.

Indeed!

For example:

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

And just as then, many today say:

"This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

Peace!
PJ

 

[CabinetMaker]

Pot, meet Kettle.


I saw it just fine, and had already corrected it in previous posts (see Post #222 for a reference).


See above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Post 222, and is references to other posts, do not deal with why you claim Paul's letter necessarily includes all future traditions. Can you defend that one point?

 

[Cruciform]

Post 222, and is references to other posts, do not deal with why you claim Paul's letter necessarily includes all future traditions. Can you defend that one point?

I already have. The point is that Paul's reference to apostolic Tradition necessarily includes such apostolic doctrines as, for example, the primacy and authority of the papacy, apostolic succession, and the development of Christian doctrine---all of which point to the subsequent growth and maturity of apostolic doctrine throughout Christian history (and not only during the Apostolic Era itself).

Again, Post #222 cites several other posts in which this is established.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

I already have. The point is that Paul's reference to apostolic Tradition necessarily includes such apostolic doctrines as, for example, the primacy and authority of the papacy, apostolic succession, and the development of Christian doctrine---all of which point to the subsequent growth and maturity of apostolic doctrine throughout Christian history (and not only during the Apostolic Era itself).

Again, Post #222 cites several other posts in which this is established.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

That is not a defense of your assertion, that is simply a restatement of your assertion. You need to defend your assertion that Paul's tradition necessarily includes future traditions. The traditions you referenced in this post ate themselves "future" traditions from Paul's perspective add they did not exist when Paul wrote his letter,Therefore they cannot be used as support for your position.

 

[csuguy]

Simply untrue:
...
Every appeal to Scripture is in fact an appeal to some human being's interpretation of Scripture.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I wasn't speaking of the telephone game; obviously that is an over-simplification. Oral traditions are more resilient than that - but still less resilient than the written word.

Also - the oral traditions are nothing but "some human being's interpretation of Scripture." At least the good ones. The bad ones aren't even rooted in scripture but were made up.