Can a sincere Protestant help me out. I am considering becoming a Christian and choosing which denomination to join.

Can a sincere Protestant help me out. I am considering becoming a Christian and choosing which denomination to join. Can a Protestant defend their belief in “sola scriptura” given picrel and the ChatGPT I’m about to post?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Dirk

      I assume this is not bait

      This is a strawman, see vid

      ?si=kHYsZlV-MRt1leW0
      Sola scriptura doesn't mean sole authority, it means sope infallible authority

      https://i.imgur.com/bSV15Wc.jpg

      This is about sola scriptura leading to man-made interpretations of tradition

      Yes, interpretation is inevitable and fallible. Protestants have traditions and systematic theology.

      https://i.imgur.com/nq5EJ26.jpg

      Oops forgot pic

      What's the alternative you're considering? There are no more apostles. Read the requirements in acts 1:21 on.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > What's the alternative you're considering?
        Apostolic succession is a viable alternative. When it says apostolic involvement, it doesn’t mean the apostles personally ratified everyone. People connected to the apostles could do that in the Bible too. So it’s not like only apostles can recruit and appoint. But they remain involved in all future appointments because they are the foundation, as the Bible says.

        • 1 month ago
          Dirk

          Eisegesis but really irrelevant considering Protestants are on both sides of the issue

          In the NT we see appointed elders by the apostles and their co-laborers (like Titus). In the absence of apostolic direction, and without a prescribed extra-ecclesial structure, it is the local church that appoints her own elders

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What eisegesis did I do?
            > In the absence of apostolic direction, and without a prescribed extra-ecclesial structure, it is the local church that appoints her own elders
            You r just lying or making that up. No NT instances of that at all.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > Yes, interpretation is inevitable and fallible. Protestants have traditions and systematic theology
        What infallible interpretation tradition do Protestants have?!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why do we need an infallible interpretative tradition?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Otherwise you’re stuck with man-made (fallen) interpretations. If you just airdropped Bibles into a random population you wouldn’t get Christianity. People would be reading it through fallen eyes. That’s what Protestantism is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A fallen interpretation of Jesus is a fallen Jesus, a fallen Jesus cannot save.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think you need a perfect understanding of Christian truth in order to be saved?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Definitely not, but I think that preferring the real Jesus compared to a fallen knockoff is a requirement, at least.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So then why do I need an infallible interpretation of Christianity in order to have the real Jesus?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is about sola scriptura leading to man-made interpretations of tradition

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Oops forgot pic

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nowhere in that verse does it state that tradition is an infallible authority.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What does it say about tradition in your mind then?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Paul is just saying that the Thessalonians should follow the apostolic teaching that he gave to them orally and in writing. It's pretty simple. There's no evidence in this verse for the idea that these traditions were anything different in content from what Paul wrote about, much less that tradition is an independent and infallible authority that can't be judged by scripture, which is what you need to defend the Catholodox view of tradition. You can just as easily interpret this in line with many of the Church Fathers like Irenaeus, who say that the content of apostolic tradition is just identical with the content of scripture, with the only difference being the mode of transmission.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > There's no evidence in this verse for the idea that these traditions were anything different in content from what Paul wrote about
          Here is the cope

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You do realize that syllogistically, scripture is a tradition, right? It has to be maintained by scribes within an institution and the canon itself must be decided according to tradition.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All of those mouths have been dead for at least 1800 years now
    Even Irenaeus, who was taught by a disciple of a disciple, barely has anything to report from tradition and has to use the same style of arguing for his points that we do today.

    There's probably nothing in history that's easier to prove than that oral tales quickly become inaccurate

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So the church has no reliable living memory of Jesus anymore apart from what is in the written record? When do you think the church’s last true memories of Jesus were forgotten?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >So the church has no reliable living memory of Jesus anymore apart from what is in the written record?
        Not at all, for a similar example look at the Talmud: it's a collection of israeli tradition and the time from the last prophet (that they accept, anyway) until it was written was about 900 years. It's a mess of obvious legends and tall tales like a Rabbi winning a debate against God (!): https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.59b.5?lang=bi&with=all

        >When do you think the church’s last true memories of Jesus were forgotten?
        Those taught by the disciples' disciples - to my knowledge Irenaeus is the only example of that. We do have the writings of the disciples' disciples and those are for sure ultra useful! But past that the dilution becomes too extreme.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > Those taught by the disciples' disciples - to my knowledge Irenaeus is the only example of that
          *completely arbitrary man-made cutoff*
          Too dumb

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know anyone after that who is able to cite "the Apostles told X who told Y who told me..."?

            After Irenaeus no one is able to do this. Papias sounds like he did but his work is almost completely lost. (The emerging Catholics apparently didn't want to preserve such a crucial work but kept reams and reams of Origen's ramblings. sus/10)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Do you know anyone after that who is able to cite "the Apostles told X who told Y who told me..."?
            Any clergyman?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Any clergyman?
            Absolutely positively not, that's absurd. What clergyman is getting oral traditions passed down for 2000 years?
            (Remember: oral. Not from a written document but a chain of oral narrators)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Orthodox and the Catholic Churches have 2,000 year-old sacred apostolic tradition handed from apostles down. In Catholicism there is 1-1 transmission from St. Peter specifically

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Give me an example of one such tradition.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Centralization, for one (

            https://i.imgur.com/nq5EJ26.jpg

            Oops forgot pic

            )

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What oral tradition are Catholic clergymen given about centralization?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not to recognize people who leave the church as having valid authority.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not to recognize people who leave the church as having valid authority.
            In what manner are they given this tradition?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In what manner are Catholic clergy taught to not recognize non-Catholic teachers? By the statement that non-Catholic teachers aren’t apostolic and not in communion with Peter.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ...so someone says "don't trust non-Catholics i swear this goes all the way back" and you're calling this some ancient tradition? What makes it any more believable than the Rabbincal tradition that the Prophet Elijah said Rabbis once won a debate with God (I am not making that up, look at https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.59b.5?lang=bi&with=all)

            What specifically did an Apostle say, and to who, and who did that person tell it to?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well there are no Biblical instances of people starting any churches without apostolic involvement none. And then there is John 2:19:

            “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”

            This verse is typically interpreted as addressing the issue of teachers who had left the early Catholic community.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We're discussing oral traditions, remember?

            tbh

            You’re not very smart. Just say you can’t hang.

            is kinda looking right

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The meaning of scripture is oral tradition. Many church fathers talking about how every heretic argues from scripture.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The meaning of scripture is oral tradition
            What Apostle orally a meaning of John 2:19 and who did he teach it to?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Peter knew Jesus, he transmitted his memory of Jesus to Linus. When you know who Jesus was, you interpret scripture correctly. You can also know which scriptures are inspired and which are not, in order to canonize them. Thus, scripture is the most essential component of our memory of Jesus, but it does not define Jesus, neither does it define our complete memory of Him. The Spirit does, through the church’s entire tradition, which is the memory of Jesus.

            Protestants are forced to reconstruct their Jesus from the Bible as if it were an archeological document. They have no actual memory or knowledge of Jesus.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Peter knew Jesus, he transmitted his memory of Jesus to Linus
            What has the modern Pope had orally transmitted to him from Linus' line about Jesus' life?

            >You can also know which scriptures are inspired and which are not
            If we have a list of scriptures orally transmitted from Peter why are so many in the early church unsure whether the Apocalypse of Peter was by Peter or not? People like Clement of Alexandria quote it as full-blown scripture.

            >through the church’s entire tradition, which is the memory of Jesus
            Tell me something about Jesus' life that isn't in the Gospels that has been passed down orally to today
            (Remember: living oral traditions. Fragments of Papias' oral work interviewing people doesn't count)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > What has the modern Pope had orally transmitted to him from Linus' line about Jesus' life?
            Grace

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Can you elaborate?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The concept of "grace" being orally transmitted through the line of succession from the Apostle Peter (and his immediate successor, traditionally considered to be Linus) to the modern Pope isn't about specific, new information regarding Jesus' life beyond what is recorded in Scripture. Instead, it refers to the spiritual and apostolic authority believed to be passed down through the ages.

            In Catholic teaching, the grace of apostolic succession is the divine assistance given to the Pope and the bishops in communion with him to faithfully teach, sanctify, and guide the Church in truth. This includes preserving the teachings of Jesus as handed down through the centuries, both in written Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

            This grace is understood to be a guiding force rather than new content about Jesus' life; it ensures the continuity of faith, the proper interpretation of Scripture, and the preservation of doctrinal truth within the Church. It is part of the Catholic belief in the Holy Spirit's continual guidance of the Church, which is seen as stemming from Christ's promise to be with his Church always, to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The concept of "grace" being orally transmitted through the line of succession from the Apostle Peter (and his immediate successor, traditionally considered to be Linus) to the modern Pope isn't about specific, new information regarding Jesus' life beyond what is recorded in Scripture.
            Then it's not an oral tradition and you shouldn't call it that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Man this is sad. Really resorting to ChatGPT huh? Can you tell yet that it isn't designed for defending its points?

            You said Peter told Linus all about Jesus and indicated this knowledge is orally passed on. Yet, can't give a SINGLE example of something from Jesus' life that has actually been passed down?

            Man at least the Rabbis had the decency to make up Elijah supporting the story about the time they pwned God in a debate. You're reduced to using a chatbot to wave at vague notions of some wispy doctrine.

            I’m telling you the theory the concrete stuff is obvious: e.g. Immaculate conception

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I’m telling you the theory the concrete stuff is obvious: e.g. Immaculate conception
            You said "Peter knew Jesus, he transmitted his memory of Jesus to Linus...through the church’s entire tradition, which is the memory of Jesus."

            But this oral "memory of Jesus" somehow includes not a single thing about Jesus' life? John says you couldn't write enough books to say it all but you don't have the smallest, tiniest morsel in this "memory"?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The scripture is the written aspect of the church’s memory of Jesus.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We're talking about oral traditions as opposed to written: by word of mouth rather than by letter, as the OP says.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Some things can’t be put into words Anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then they couldn't be put into an oral tradition either

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oral tradition can include practices, rituals, and shared understandings, not just verbal or word-based transmissions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's like this homie forgets "religion" mostly consists of rituals, but they helped destroy that so what do they know.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >not just verbal or word-based transmissions
            Holy goodness my man what does the word "oral" mean?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Emphasizes the transmission method rather than the content type. It refers to knowledge, practices, rituals, and beliefs being passed down through spoken communication, as opposed to being written down. This spoken transmission can include not just stories or teachings in words, but also the demonstration of practices, rituals, and the conveyance of shared understandings and values through example and lived experience. The key aspect of oral tradition is the direct, person-to-person handing down of these elements, primarily through speech or demonstration, across generations.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This

            Also pic related

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Does it make any sense to say "oral tradition" includes something besides "verbal or word-based transmissions"?

            Think about what you are saying

            >When is the exact moment the church forgot anything about Jesus outside the Bible in your view?
            Well the second anything happened, of course. Every instant a thousand sights, sounds, smells, come and go unrecorded in your memory. Something was forgotten about every interaction Jesus ever had with any human being. That's the nature of memory, it does not and cannot store everything.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Let me be more clear, when is the exact moment you believe the church had already forgot everything about Jesus and about herself outside of what’s recorded in the Bible

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Let me be more clear, when is the exact moment you believe the church had already forgot everything about Jesus and about herself outside of what’s recorded in the Bible
            Well never, since we have some fragments of Papias who wrote some down from outside of the Bible, and Irenaeus writes some down too

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you think the world has forgotten everything about Jesus and the early Jesus movement outside of what’s in the Bible and 1-2 other sources, but you also think the church he established is still alive and well, I think you’re confused.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No confusion, with the available data that we have we're perfectly capable of following his commands and fulfilling his vision for us. According to you the Catholics have a perfect divinely-guided memory of it all and they're not that different from Protestants, to the point that outsiders have difficulty distinguishing the difference between the two

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Protestants that look Catholic are all pro LGBT, and the Protestants that aren’t pro LGBT don’t look Catholic. Neither have grace.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you of the opinion that Southern Baptists "look Catholic"? This is an absurd argument and I think you know it.

            >Neither have grace.
            Can you elaborate?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Mainline Protestants are the only Protestants that resemble Catholics, with LGBT flags everywhere.
            > Can you elaborate?
            All Protestantism is man-made.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Mainline Protestants are the only Protestants that resemble Catholics
            "Resemble" in what way?

            >All Protestantism is man-made.
            As opposed to what?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Man-made as opposed to God-given

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is more God-given about Catholicism than Protestantism?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The priesthood is built on the foundation of the apostles and comes from the Bible.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The priesthood is built on the foundation of the apostles and comes from the Bible.
            The Rabbinate is built on the foundation of Moses and comes from the Torah - how did that turn out?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They weren’t built on solid foundations with the Spirit guiding them. They weren’t called the pillar and ground of truth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They weren’t built on solid foundations with the Spirit guiding them
            We can tell that even the immediate successors of the Apostles didn't have this either. Clement of Rome was teaching that the phoenix was real, remember?
            So not only was he not inerrant, he was actively teaching falsehood. What kind of solid foundation is that?

            Their successors taught myth and nonsense like the phoenix and the Rabbinate taught myth and nonsense like God losing a debate against them. It's the exact same thing repeating itself.

            >They weren’t called the pillar and ground of truth.
            Is someone saying that the phoenix is real "the pillar and ground of truth"?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Someone saying something about a mythical bird in a letter is not teaching heresy..
            > Their successors taught myth and nonsense like the phoenix and the Rabbinate taught myth and nonsense like God losing a debate against them. It's the exact same thing repeating itself.
            You have zero respect for the church.

            “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15, KJV)

            Ephesians 2:20 states that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.”

            Yet you compare it to the rabbinate?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Someone saying something about a mythical bird in a letter is not teaching heresy
            Clearly nothing is preventing them from teaching egregious falsehood. Not only that but it speaks very poorly to their character as a teacher, since they are willing to incorporate unverified myth into their religious teachings.

            If he can be wrong on something like that, that we can objectively check, why think he can't be wrong on metaphysical things we can't directly check? Why think he isn't willing to be exactly as fast and loose with those?

            The New Testament writings are something fundamentally different, not containing a single word of falsehood.

            >You have zero respect for the church.
            Not so, I'm very respectful in church. But you have to take a realistic view of it. Sometimes you hear some dumb stuff being said by people in the church. Acknowledge it as dumb stuff and move on. Insisting on infallible churches is laughable when we have one of the Apostles' own successors spewing falsehood. Irenaeus, taught by Polycarp, who was John's disciple, said of him that "this man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm).

            And yet he taught falsehood. It should clearly be much much much worse for someone 500 years later.

            >Yet you compare it to the rabbinate?
            Unless you believe in the phoenix and that Rabbis can beat God in a debate yes, the comparison is obviously apt. The church is Israel and Israel is the church. We became corrupted before, again and again and again in the OT, and the same thing happened during NT times. We can see it beginning the very moment the Apostles aren't there to keep things in check.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > The church is Israel and Israel is the church. We became corrupted before, again and again and again in the OT, and the same thing happened during NT times
            Christ cleansed Israel from her collective sins once and for all w His blood sacrifice. I don’t buy that the New covenant is subject to the Judges cycle. It’s led by the Spirit and lifted up by grace in every generation. Put another way the body of Christ can’t fall. You have a very low view of the church. Belief in phoenixes was not accepted by the church body btw.
            > Not so, I'm very respectful in church. But you have to take a realistic view of it
            No offence, but I’m not interested in a realistic religion. Is the resurrection realistic? The church is the continuation of that, it’s miraculous.
            > The New Testament writings are something fundamentally different, not containing a single word of falsehood.
            I have the same question for you as for the other anon, do you think the apostles were each infallible in everything concerning faith and morals?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Christ cleansed Israel from her collective sins once and for all w His blood sacrifice
            For sure but I don't see any indication that this makes people less likely to fail and to sin. Remember when the first failure ever happened? Adam and Eve had been completely sinless before that.

            >Put another way the body of Christ can’t fall.
            According to the Pope himself it did, for a very long time. Pope Francis amended the Catechism to say (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html)

            >the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide

            However, Pope Leo X in Exsurge Domine had said (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm):
            >That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
            Is something that
            >not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church

            So according to the modern Catholic church, the Catholic church was corrupted for centuries and centuries because it endorsed (and performed) killing.

            >do you think the apostles were each infallible in everything concerning faith and morals?
            Not themselves personally (King David had the Holy Spirit but still sinned badly), but I do think everything they taught under the Spirit is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Not themselves personally (King David had the Holy Spirit but still sinned badly), but I do think everything they taught under the Spirit is.
            When they were writing the Bible, or at other times as well? How much of what the apostles said would have had the same authority as scripture, and how would you know?
            > For sure but I don't see any indication that this makes people less likely to fail and to sin
            The church is composed of individual sinners, but together she is the unfallen bride, the body of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth. Trying to find borderline contradictions doesn’t impress, it just goes to show how threatened you are by what it has to say.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >When they were writing the Bible, or at other times as well?
            It seems like any time they were engaged in religious teaching, since their speeches in Acts for instance also have it

            >How much of what the apostles said would have had the same authority as scripture, and how would you know?
            Well, they tell us. Remember when Paul tells us he has no command from God on a specific subject and so he offers his own advice in 1 Corinthians 7? The usual assumption is that they are speaking under the Spirit. When that is not the case, they will tell you.

            >together she is the unfallen bride
            The Catholic church itself refutes that, as we saw.

            >Trying to find borderline contradictions
            Borderline contradictions?! One Pope declares it heretical to say that heretics shouldn't be burned and another that it would be heretical to say that they should. It's as hard a contradiction as if it had been declared that the sky is green!

            It's either fallen now or was fallen then, according to itself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >but together she is the unfallen bride, the body of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth.
            Why didn’t Arianism prevail and not true then. The majority of the church was Arian even the infallible Pope Liberius who excommunicated Athanasius.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Roman priesthood is one of its intolerable false doctrines which severs it from the body of Christ. According to the New Testament there is no priest of the order of Melchizedek but Jesus Christ, through whom every Christian communes personally with God, and who offered a perfect sacrifice once for all so that those for whom it is made can never be damned but are reconciled to God forever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Everything (except the first sentence) you say is true, but Jesus defines bishops when he tells Peter to feed his sheep. And he gives the church his authority when he gives her His authority to forgive sins.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus defines bishops when he tells Peter to feed his sheep.
            Jesus merely restored Peter to his position, which is why He said it thrice.
            >And he gives the church his authority when he gives her His authority to forgive sins.
            Amen, though the sense in which that is true is probably not he sense in which you meant it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Whoever your overseer in the faith is didn’t come from Christ, I tell you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/y6w0eqH.jpg

            This

            Also pic related

            I honestly think this thread is being ineptly botspammed since one guy is copy-pasting from ChatGPT and another posting completely irrelevant or trivial things to support the ChatGPT

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Man this is sad. Really resorting to ChatGPT huh? Can you tell yet that it isn't designed for defending its points?

            You said Peter told Linus all about Jesus and indicated this knowledge is orally passed on. Yet, can't give a SINGLE example of something from Jesus' life that has actually been passed down?

            Man at least the Rabbis had the decency to make up Elijah supporting the story about the time they pwned God in a debate. You're reduced to using a chatbot to wave at vague notions of some wispy doctrine.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The meaning of scripture is oral tradition
            What Apostle orally a meaning of John 2:19 and who did he teach it to?

            *orally taught

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >So the church has no reliable living memory of Jesus anymore apart from what is in the written record?
        Not at all, for a similar example look at the Talmud: it's a collection of israeli tradition and the time from the last prophet (that they accept, anyway) until it was written was about 900 years. It's a mess of obvious legends and tall tales like a Rabbi winning a debate against God (!): https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.59b.5?lang=bi&with=all

        >When do you think the church’s last true memories of Jesus were forgotten?
        Those taught by the disciples' disciples - to my knowledge Irenaeus is the only example of that. We do have the writings of the disciples' disciples and those are for sure ultra useful! But past that the dilution becomes too extreme.

        And note that it says Elijah the Prophet affirmed the story about God losing a debate with Rabbis. So you be the judge about whether tradition about what prophets said is reliable after that long.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I began reading the church fathers and was SHOCKED to see how they taught the LUTHERAN idea of Sola Scriptura. I had grown up believing that divine revelation was found in both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, and that all those dogmas which weren’t taught by Scripture were believed in b/c they were passed on from the apostles by oral tradition. Reading the earliest apostolic fathers' clear denial of such a position made me begin to doubt the veracity of Rome’s claims. How could she teach that in Peter Christ created a perpetual ecclesiastical office of supreme jurisdiction -unity with which constitutes membership of the visible church- when Scripture nowhere teaches this? For even if we were to grant that all this is true concerning Peter we no where find it taught that this would be an ongoing, even defining and necessary, aspect of the church. So imagine how uncomfortable I became as a Roman Catholic when I read that St. Irenaeus saying that it was the heretics who “GATHERED THEIR VIEWS FROM OTHER SOURCES THAN SCRIPTURE” !

    Iren., Adv. Haer. 1.8.1

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Bible itself instructs us to hold to EQUALLY to verbal apostolic traditions as to the Biblical tradition.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Reading the church fathers had made me feel ever more discomfort with the Roman Church. Compared to the witness of the early church Rome’s claims became INDEFENSIBLE
        The great archbishop of Jerusalem Cyril provided the final DEATH NAIL in the Roman coffin. He showed that the true patristic interpretation of St. Paul’s words concerning “hold fast to the traditions you were taught" 2 Thess. 2:15 were NOT ABOUT unwritten oral tradition but rather about the creedal statements handed on and taken SOLELY FROM SCRIPTURE

        Cat. Lect 5.12, 4.17 and 12.5

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > 2 Thess. 2:15 were NOT ABOUT unwritten oral tradition but rather about the creedal statements handed on and taken SOLELY FROM SCRIPTURE
          Doubt (x)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Cyril didn’t know what he was talking about because….HE JUST DIDN’T OK!
            Ok

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I guarantee you that Cyril is not saying the scriptures are the only reliable memory the church has of Christ.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Cope. I too was in denial like you. I was DESPERATE for answers. Even though I had begun to see that Protestantism was TRUE I still did not want to act on it. Some RCs tried to explain away by pointing to St. Athanasius’ praise of traditions and their necessity. I SO wanted to explain this away but when I considered how Athanasius defined Scripture as something HANDED DOWN (paradosis, i.e. tradition) then I saw that he did indeed confess the Protestant view because in the HANDED DOWN divine books are ALONE the doctrine of godliness. Hilary of Poitiers, the Great Western Champion against the Arians concurred, Hilary on the Trinity 4.14

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Additionally, Basil the Great straight out denies that the teachings of the faith can be sought in other places than in the Holy Scriptures and he respects no traditions except those that agree with Holy Scripture. Basil of Caesarea, Concerning Faith, St Basil Ascetical Works p. 57 and 58-59

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is the cope? What I said is true. Sacred tradition is just the memory the church has of the Word made flesh.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Saying no uh! to the words of Cyril is a cope.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Cyril was a literal Catholic. Everything he said is compatible with that. I don’t quite know what you mean

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You’re not very smart. Just say you can’t hang.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I have 130 IQ and a stem from a t20

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And yet your only refutation to what Cyril said was no uh and that he was catholic. I’m seriously doubting your claims.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your only refutation of Cyril being Catholic is him emphasizing the importance of scripture in confirming the faith and stressing that even the speaker's own words should not be taken at face value without scriptural evidence. This aligns with the tradition in Catholicism that teachings and doctrines should be rooted in Scripture. It also acknowledges the role of tradition, as Cyril speaker refers to the creed and the importance of holding fast to the traditions received.

            My point is that scripture seems to establish a centralized church with apostolic checks and balances and with a sacred tradition beyond scripture alone.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I never tried to refute Cyril being Catholic because it is utterly irrelevant to what we’re discussing and doesn’t disprove anything I’ve said. Cyril shows the patristic understanding of the verse is that tradition means creedal statements handed on and taken solely from scripture. This is not the Roman position. What Iraeneus and Cyril said would at once do away with the sacrament of confirmation, of the necessity of chrism oil blessed by bishops, the bodily assumption of Mary, of the necessity of adding water to the chalice (the absence of which Rome teaches is mortal sin and contrary to Christ’s institution!) just to name a few.
            >My point is that scripture seems to establish a centralized church with apostolic checks and balances and with a sacred tradition beyond scripture alone.
            No it doesn’t. Augustine explicitly states that ONLY the authors of the DIVINE SCRIPTURES were COMPLETELY FREE FROM ERROR. Here was to my SHOCK no room for infallible papal authors of inerrant decrees. In these divine books, the great Doctor of the Church teaches, are all truths concerning faith AND morals CLEARLY laid down

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Augustine explicitly states that ONLY the authors of the DIVINE SCRIPTURES were COMPLETELY FREE FROM ERROR.
            Therefore we shouldn’t take Peter as our first bishop then?
            Augustine himself was a bishop, lol.
            > Here was to my SHOCK no room for infallible papal authors of inerrant decrees
            The church already well knew that she was being infallibly guided into all truth at this point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Therefore we shouldn’t take Peter as our first bishop then?
            Scripture nowhere teaches this. For even if we were to grant that all this is true concerning Peter(it’s not). We no where find it taught that this would be an ongoing, even defining and necessary, aspect of the church.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Scripture teaches about the existence of bishops and that Peter was prince of the apostles. If you think God intended this elaborate structure to just disappear, in order for anarchy to establish and take its place, you are smoking the funny stuff

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            As to the first part of your post:
            Cyril is clearly talking about the symbol of the faith, the Nicene Creed. Every part of the Creed comes from scripture, it’s true.
            > What Iraeneus and Cyril said would at once do away with the sacrament of confirmation, of the necessity of chrism oil blessed by bishops, the bodily assumption of Mary, of the necessity of adding water to the chalice (the absence of which Rome teaches is mortal sin and contrary to Christ’s institution!) just to name a few.
            No it wouldn’t, because the church herself is scriptural and her own infallibility is scriptural.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Cyril is clearly talking about the symbol of the faith, the Nicene Creed. Every part of the Creed comes from scripture, it’s true
            Yes. Therefore 2 Thessalonians doesn’t refute scripture alone because traditions means things from scripture.
            >No it wouldn’t
            Yes it would. all these things are absent from scripture.

            Scripture teaches about the existence of bishops and that Peter was prince of the apostles. If you think God intended this elaborate structure to just disappear, in order for anarchy to establish and take its place, you are smoking the funny stuff

            >Scripture teaches about the existence of bishops
            Yes
            >Peter was prince of the apostles.
            No.
            Where is it in scripture that a perpetual ecclesiastical office of supreme jurisdiction would be an ongoing, even defining and necessary, aspect of the church?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Therefore 2 Thessalonians doesn’t refute scripture alone because traditions means things from scripture
            You know that Paul wasn’t referring to the Nicene Creed right? He didn’t even know what the Nicene Creed was. Christians has no creeds at the time of Paul’s writing. He was literally just talking about what he says: oral traditions, equally valid to the written.
            > Where is it in scripture that a perpetual ecclesiastical office of supreme jurisdiction would be an ongoing, even defining and necessary, aspect of the church?
            Where it says the church is the continuation of the reality of the resurrection, therefore its leadership apparatus is not subject to the passing of death, but transmitted to trustworthy people able to resume the mission (2 Tim 2:2).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. What part of the Nicene Creed does not come from scripture? The patristic meaning of that verse is creedal statements ONLY from scripture not all oral traditions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So because Cyril said the Creed was what Paul was talking about in that scripture, even though creeds didn’t exist at the time of Paul’s writing, you think that there are no valid extra-scriptural Christian truths that the church has? I don’t think that’s sound logic.

            Also, yeah. If you acknowledge bishops and you acknowledge the Biblical church had apostolic, Petrine leadership, I’m amazed that you think that bishops would come from anywhere else other than that original foundation of leadership laid by the apostles.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again. What part of the Nicene creed cannot be found in scripture?
            >If you acknowledge bishops and you acknowledge the Biblical church had apostolic, Petrine leadership, I’m amazed that you think that bishops would come from anywhere else other than that original foundation of leadership laid by the apostles
            False premise.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > False premise
            What’s your logic? Where would new bishops come from apart from the original structure the apostles set up and set in motion?

            So then why do I need an infallible interpretation of Christianity in order to have the real Jesus?

            Because God is infallible, the Holy Spirit is infallible, the Holy Spirit guides the church and brings to remembrance Jesus’ presence and exact memory.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Because God is infallible, the Holy Spirit is infallible, the Holy Spirit guides the church and brings to remembrance Jesus’ presence and exact memory.
            Yeah, the church can be guided by the Holy Spirit, but even Catholics will recognize that that doesn't mean everything the church does is infallible. So, you're going to need to do more than that to show that the church has an infallible teaching authority.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It’s very simple, if the church has the authority of Jesus Christ and of Peter then its teachings are correct.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't even follow. Governments are given authority by God, but they're obviously not infallible.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Will you find God at the government or at the authorized church of Jesus Christ?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The false premise is that if I acknowledge bishops I acknowledge a Petrine leadership.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I use “Petrine” simply to mean centralized in terms of there being one common union of co-recognition.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What do you think that means?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Unity of Christians in one communal eucharistic life in union with Peter and/84 his successors

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yup. Not in the Bible.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/2QtmiLm.png

      Reading the church fathers had made me feel ever more discomfort with the Roman Church. Compared to the witness of the early church Rome’s claims became INDEFENSIBLE
      The great archbishop of Jerusalem Cyril provided the final DEATH NAIL in the Roman coffin. He showed that the true patristic interpretation of St. Paul’s words concerning “hold fast to the traditions you were taught" 2 Thess. 2:15 were NOT ABOUT unwritten oral tradition but rather about the creedal statements handed on and taken SOLELY FROM SCRIPTURE

      Cat. Lect 5.12, 4.17 and 12.5

      This is powerful stuff

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    As a former protty, I can assure you there are genuine discrepancies in the Biblical text. For instance what was the price David paid for the threshing floor to house the Ark of The Covenant? 2 Samuel says 100 shekels of Gold, 1 Chronicles says 50 shekels of silver. Begome Ordodox!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Protties have no answer
      Orthochads win again!

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Bible is just pretty fax. My grace is sufficient. Anyone who is not down with the Bible, something is just wrong with you. There are spiritual babies that hype up the Bible and will look weird to you. They may even be acting out of line but pay not attention to them. God entrusted them a platform, of one or of many, to show that he can use anyone at any time regardless of their level. It's about you and the Lord Jesus. My top down is Jesus. My source is Jesus. You want to ask God what you should do next, which job you should take, which events you should go to. You won't find that in the Bible and God is not the kind for you to grind or ask some weirdo to give you weird answers in the weirdest fashion. A child asks his father directly, and the father gives his answer freely to his children.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Some teachings via word of mouth were apparently given to some ancient Thessalonians, but no one today is an ancient Thessalonian, so no one knows what these teachings via word of mouth are.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Regardless, it’s evidence of an absence of “scripture alone” mindset among the Biblical authors.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are deeply confused. If Apostles were still around then Protestants would listen to them. They aren't so our only inerrant guide are the scriptures.

        Protestants do make cautious use of older Christian sources, but they have a realistic view of them. Most of those people had no access to historical information that we don't have - often, significantly less.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > If Apostles were still around then Protestants would listen to them
          Even though they were mere fallible men (outside of scripture duty, and most apostles didn’t write scripture)?
          > They aren't
          I feel that to learn from someone who learned from Peter and Paul would be just as good?
          > our only inerrant guide are the scriptures
          So your defeated claim is that all such living memory has been erased.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Even though they were mere fallible men (outside of scripture duty, and most apostles didn’t write scripture)?
            When speaking under the Holy Spirit prophets are not fallible, look at all of the Apostles' speeches in Acts for instance

            >I feel that to learn from someone who learned from Peter and Paul would be just as good?
            You already got definitively refuted trying to apply this to Popes by

            >I’m telling you the theory the concrete stuff is obvious: e.g. Immaculate conception
            You said "Peter knew Jesus, he transmitted his memory of Jesus to Linus...through the church’s entire tradition, which is the memory of Jesus."

            But this oral "memory of Jesus" somehow includes not a single thing about Jesus' life? John says you couldn't write enough books to say it all but you don't have the smallest, tiniest morsel in this "memory"?

            Also no, it wouldn't, even the Apostles' direct successors were errant. The Apostles' letters were inerrant but 1 Clement, written by Clement of Rome, says that the Phoenix is real in chapter 25: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

            If he's that careless and gullible he's no one to put true trust in. He's a historical source and nothing more.

            >So your defeated claim is that all such living memory has been erased.
            Time universally erodes oral traditions into nearly useless muck that makes fact impossible to separate from fiction. Did you read about the Rabbinical tradition saying they beat God in a debate and Elijah backing it up?

            There used to be oral traditions about the time of Elijah, of course. But it eroded into the most absurd nonsense imaginable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lol, you are absurd. You think everything the apostles said is infallible? And you think nothing their successor says is trustworthy? And you think that there is no memory of Jesus apart from what’s in the book? Do you think if airdropped Bibles into a random culture and random population such as rural China, you would come back in 10 years and find them practising Nicene Christianity?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You think everything the apostles said is infallible?
            When speaking under the Holy Spirit yes, absolutely!

            >And you think nothing their successor says is trustworthy?
            How trustworthy is a guy who believes in the Phoenix?

            >And you think that there is no memory of Jesus apart from what’s in the book?
            You can't give me a single example.

            >Do you think if airdropped Bibles into a random culture and random population such as rural China, you would come back in 10 years and find them practising Nicene Christianity?
            If they could understand it and didn't add too many ideas from their own culture yeah, absolutely. They would sound like Protestants

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > When speaking under the Holy Spirit yes, absolutely!
            How would you know?
            > How trustworthy is a guy who believes in the Phoenix?
            ?
            > You can't give me a single example.
            Not an answer, you think that there is no memory of Jesus apart from what’s in the book yes or no

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How would you know?
            Christ said to and his message was proven by miracles, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUtwaN7lQbU being those we have perhaps the strongest historical case for

            >?
            Clement of Rome. Direct companion of the Apostles. He taught in his letter that the Phoenix is real. I linked you to it

            >Not an answer, you think that there is no memory of Jesus apart from what’s in the book yes or no.
            The answer should be clear: no I think it has completed evaporated aside from what's written

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > The answer should be clear: no I think it has completed evaporated aside from what's written
            So the Bible to you is a kind of archeological record. Do you think the movement started by Jesus disappeared as well?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you think the movement started by Jesus disappeared as well?
            no

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When is the exact moment the church forgot anything about Jesus outside the Bible in your view?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There was an absence of "scripture alone" mindset because God was still speaking to them verbally through the mouths of apostles.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, so if none of the apostles ever held to a scripture alone mindset, then neither should we.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is God speaking to you verbally through the mouths of apostles?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Most of the apostles didn’t write scripture.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They were fallible men, they never transmitted the Word of God by speaking or writing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >they never transmitted the Word of God by speaking
            Why do you think this?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why would anyone think they did?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because that was the purpose of their office.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So you think they were 12 infallible mini-Jesuses

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Were the apostles fallible?

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, your first image holds the answer. "Word of mouth" refers to things which Paul and the apostles taught orally in person. The pope of Rome is not an apostle, there are no apostles alive today. You cannot listen to Paul preach, the only way *we* can hold fast to what the apostles taught is through scripture alone. The specific people to whom Paul wrote had been taught by him in person. The implication of arguing that this text contradicts sola scriptura is that for him to teach sola scriptura Paul would have to tell the Thessalonians to disregard anything he personally taught them if he did not do so in writing, which is an absurd strawman.

Comments are closed.