kfc posts:

These teachings of St.Paul ARE Sacred Tradition, KFC. Some of them were written down and some weren't (unwritten) but that doesn't make those unwritten teachings any less the truth than those that were written in the Books that would later become the canon of Scripture.

GOD NEVER INTENDED THAT SACRED SCRIPTURE BE THE SOLE SOURCE AND GUIDE OF HIS FAITH AND DOCTRINES, KFC.

think about it....from the getgo, God primarily intended to have a body of men appointed to teach in His name. In the Old Law, He says, "The lips of the priest shal keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." As long as the Old Law obliged, Christ referred the people to that authority. In St.Matt. 23:2, He says, "The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do."    

In the New Law, He substituted the Apostolic body and their successors as teachers in His name. Some years after the early Catholic Church had commenced her work of teaching mankind, a secondary record of some of the events in Christ's life and of some of His teachings and of those of the Apostles were made. That secondary record is contained in the New Testament.

From what I've been able to find, the Protestant idea that Scripture is the only source and guide of Christian faith comes from the 6th of Anglican Articles of Religion. It says, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary, so htat whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man."

That Article itself is unScriptural. Again, the last verse of St. John's Gospel tells us that not all concerning our Lord;s work is contained in Scripture. And we've already seen that St.Paul tells us that much of Christian teaching is contained in oral Traditions that must be kept and passed down by "faithful men who will be fit to teach others".

Most of your points are dubious and moot.  It doesn't refute most of my statements. You bring up Deuteronomy 18:5 as if it is going to come to me as shock, me being a jew? You're going to have a rough time agruing that this is the Apostolic Oral Tradition because most Orthodox Jews (aka Religious Jews) will say this is the Oral Law a la the Talmud.  Which you should read sometime and you'll understand why I'm saying this.  Unless you're saying that RCC Church has taken up there this which is laughable after our discourse on the heresey of Supercessession/Replacement Theology.

You seem to use certain Scripture out of convenience even when it doesn't line up with you over all theology.  1 Corinthians 14:33 " G-D is not the author of confusion."  The problem here is not with G-D, but with us finite people.  People have taken great liberty in interpreting what the bible says.  G-D did not give us HIS written word to be a source of contention or confusion.  G-D gave us HIS word in written form, so that it would be available in order for everyone to know HIS truth and have the opportunity to. HE wrote it in such a manner as to try to prevent it from being complicated nor misleading.  In 2 Peter 1:20 "prophecy of Scripture is not of any private interpretation."  Scripture can be understood by all.  No one group or person or church has a lock up on G-D's word.  This is would just be Gnostism.

The problem comes with sinful and fallible men have ignored what the bible literally says and stated what they 'think' it says, their opinion, or what it means to them.  This is not acceptable hermeneutics.  Scripture is not what we think it says or what it means to us, but rather what G-D plainly states.

The other problem is English. The average English speak person's vocabulary is roughly between 25,000 to 30,000 English words (especially if they've gone to University if not its a little lower than this) out of over a half a million words.  English is a functional language, since we use less than 10% of the words it can become difficult to accurately translate other languages into English, especially when it comes to ancient text languages.  If I couldn't read Greek/Hebrew (fairly well which I can) I would rather read Scripture in another language other than English (German, I've heard is a good language to read it in, Leauki, your thoughts?)

Now, by no means am I saying that Scriptures in English are inaccurate.  I guess at times I feel that translators poorly chose a word or maybe they did because of their theology.  An example of this is Romans 10:4.  Most translations say something to this extent 'Jesus was the end of the law.'  When something ends it means ceases to exist.  If you take what Paul is saying in context and look at 9:30 leading up 10:4 you see in the Greek and in the English words like pursue, obstacle, stumbled.  Those Greek words have an Olympic flavor as in running a race.  Then you come to 10:4.  So you're running the race there are going to obstacles that you need to overcome and not stumble upon and then it ends (telos is the Greek word there).  A better word instead of end would be goal.  You can also see telos in 1 Timothy 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:9.  Most translation are mixed between end and goal for those 2 Scriptures.

I am saying all that to say this if you're going to try to use a word (pun intended) to back your point up you've got to be only fooling yourself for I'm not laughing here.

What is this Protestant Oral Tradition you keep talking about? I would love to read it, because I'm a scholar and reader would love to increase my knowledge in that area.

Well, first Apostolic Oral Tradition isn't oral law, so there is absolutely, no, nada, none what so ever comparison to the Talmud. Aye. No way Jose to the Talmud! The Torah is Divine truth, the Talmud is well, is just fallible man's opinion. Nuff said as far as the Talmud is concerned!

Apostolic oral Tradition is Divine Tradition in that it is divinely safeguarded from error concerning Faith and morals. The Chruch expresses from time to time the exact sense of some doctrine contained either in Scripture or Tradition. As Divine Tradition can never be opposed to Scripture, and Catholic dogma can never be opposed to either Divine Tradition or Scripture, there can never be any question of placing more reliance on one than of the other.

What happens so often in these discussions between KFC and I is that she tries to sell the Protestant doctrines arrived at by private interpretation of Scripture of the Protestant forefathers. The main ones are Sola Scriptura, that the Bible is the only source and guide of Christian teachings and doctrines;  Sola Fides, that we are justified by Faith Alone and  "Once Saved, Always Saved", being born again by belief (faith alone) in Jesus as their personal Savior, believers can know for sure they are saved.  All of which are not found or supported in Scripture, but rather handed down over the centuries by Protestant teachers through Protestant oral tradition. I defend against those with Church teachings becasue I would most certainly place more reliance on the Church than upon the private interpretation of Scripture of some Protestant forefather's that's been handed down through Protestant oral tradition.  

the people's party posts:

lula posts:

The 6th of ANglican Articles of Religion is an example of Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura or "Scripture alone" which is neither Christ's nor Apostolic teaching. Sola Scriptura alleges that the Bible as interpreteted by the individual is the only source of religious authority and is the sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. From the 15th century on,  Sola Scriptura has been taught by Protestant oral tradition. How? Sola Scriptura was originated and taught first by Luther and from him, passed down to other Protestant forefathers.

By Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura which is one of the foundational beliefs across all Protestantism, a Protestant denies that there is any other source of religious authority (as Apostolic Tradition).

The Catholic on the other hand, holds the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Chruch in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation...both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture and the oral or unwritten Word called Sacred or Apostolic Tradition. Catholics believe Scripture and Tradition are the 2 sources of Christian teachings in faith and morals.

Other points specific to your question what is Protestant oral tradition.....

here are a few posts that set up my explanation of what Protestant oral traditon (POT) is;

whisper2 posts 670

whisper2 posts; 672

kfc posts;

Regarding the highlighted and KFC's denial of adhering to Protestant oral tradition.

As to the first part of whisper2's statement, there is absolutely nothing found in Scripture that backs, supports or teaches KFC's dogmatic assertion that she can absolutely know for sure she's going to heaven. She believes that becasue she's been handed down that teaching, now doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved" from Protestant oral tradition hereafter designated as POT.

Here's another example Lula of you asserting the RCC over everyone else yet again, even tho I've deleted such articles over and over.  You keep doing it.  I've asked you time and time to stick with scripture but everytime you run to debating Protestants vs the RCC.   When you do so, you're in effect telling me you have lost the argument.  No matter how much you scream the RCC is the "right church" or "God's Holy Church"  it rings hollow without the backing of scripture. 

You are acting exactly like the Pharisees that Christ admonished.  Christ debated them and showed them time and time again using  the scriptures, their error.  They were so incenced they had him killed.   Again read Matt 23.  The whole chapter. 

I've told you over and over there is NO such thing as POT yet you keep saying there is with one breath and then speak of the thousands of totally diff Protestant churches in another.  What else can I say? You believe it to be true even tho you contradict your own self.  I can't help you if you can't be corrected.    You do the same to Leauki when it comes to the Jewish faith.  You act as if you're the authority on our own faith. 

Everything in your above post has nothing to do with scripture seen by the fact that you can't back any of it up outside of your traditions. 

The RCC traditions are NO different than the traditions of the Pharisees of Jesus' times.  They are traditions of men.  Yes, men.  The Pharisees (leaders as well as the RCC leaders)  were mere men. even tho they strutted their stuff as well.   There is absolutely NO difference between the two groups.   The RCC leaders lord it over the people just as did the Pharisees of old.  They put burdens, laws, creeds on the people that are not supposed to be there wrapping them up as traditions. 

Like baptism is necessary for salvation (instead of circumcision which the Jews demanded).  No meat on Fridays?  Remember that?  How about you can't eat before communion?  Still doing that?   Most of the RCC traditions are passed down from one man to another and has NOTHING to do with what Jesus commanded or what was written. 

It's also clear (as was the Pharisees) that there's one set of rules/laws/creeds for the "little people" and another for the influential (like today's politicians, world leaders and fellow  crooked or perverse church Popes, Priests and Bishops). 

Heck they even have white elephant sales in their churches doing business in the same place they (supposedly) worship just like the Jews did in the synagogues.  Business as usual.  At least the RCC has the benefit of reading the scriptures which the Jews did not back then.  So who will be held more accountable? 

There is NO difference.  They even have their "outside" beliefs to go along with the scriptures...addiing to the scriptures.  The Jews have the Talmud and Mishnah and the Catholics have their Oral Traditions and Catechism.  NO DIFF!  

I don't have ANY of this.  I don't have an Oral Tradition or a Catechism to go by.   ONLY the scriptures.  You even admitted as much when you said the Jews and the RCC are alike in that they have Oral Traditions. 

On one hand you say: 

and on anther you say: 

Which is it?  Sola Scriptura or POT?  Can't be both.  Can't you see  YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY AND CONSTANTLY CONTRADICTING YOURSELF. 

Written in both the OT and the NT

"For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add to these things God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book.  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in the book."    Rev 22:18-19  

You shall NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminsh anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."  Deut 4:2

KFC,

Let's LOOK AT IT STEP BY STEP.

Tradition, whether Catholic or Protestant, is the passing down of teachings. Oral Tradition is the passing down of these teachings by mouth.

Here is Tradition Scripturally....

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word (oral), or by our epistle." (written). 2Thess. 2:14.

"Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast HEARD of me in faith, and in the love which is in Jesus Christ. keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost." 2Tim. 1: 13-14.

"The things which thou hast HEARD of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also." 2Tim2:2

Sola Scriptura IS Protestant oral tradition. "Sola Fides" IS POT and so is "Once Saved, Always Saved", POT.

Sola Scriptura aka "the Bible only" is the Protestant doctrine (belief) that the Bible is the sole or only rule, source and guide of faith.

Sola Scriptura is widely taught throughout the various different sects and denominations within Protestantism.....this is passing down the teaching...a la Protestant oral tradition.

Now,  let's apply 2tHESS. 2:14 to Protestant oral tradition of Sola Scriptura.....

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word (oral), or by our epistle." (written). 2Thess. 2:14.

How many times have you taught on these pages of JU that we all should stand fast and hold on to the POT of "the Bible only"? You enforce  Proteastant oral tradition of Sola Scriptura to the point of deleting all citations I make if they do not come from Sola Scriptura, the Bible only.

Your message ad nauseum to me is.... Forget CC teachings, forget papal and Chruch teaching authority, forget Apostolic Tradition, don't come here with any of these for .....it's the Bible alone.....Sola Scriptura .....it's you preaching  and teaching Protestant oral tradition.   

Sola Scriptura is POT.

What's more there are sub teachings that come under Sola Scripture. 

When you teach, "the Bible interprets itself" or "the Church is all believers", then the hearer has just collided with Protestant oral tradition.

And if it is as you say, then I'd love to have you debate that with St.Paul.

Do you really believe that St.Paul would tell us to "stand fast and hold the traditions which we have learned, if they were the same as those of the Pharisee's of Jesus' times?

Yes, Sacred Tradition is Christ teaching men...those men are called Christ's Apostles and Tradition taught by the Apostles to their legitimate successors. Apostolic Tradition and their legitimate successors is through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that Christ promised to His Chruch until the end of time. It's all there in Scripture.  

no, you can't say I'm preaching sola scripture and then POT in the same breath.  Sola scriptura is sola scriptura.  Nothing else is needed.  There is NO SUCH THING as Apostolic Successors.  There is NO SUCH THING as replacement theology.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING that the RCC is God's church on earth.  There are only three things involved in one's salvation..

1.  The Holy Spirit.

2.  The Soul Winner

3.  The Word of God

God speaks yet again.  It's NOT 2:14 but 15-17...???? 

The whole point here is NOT traditions but the fact that he didn't want the Thessalonians to be weak or vacillating but to hold their spiritual ground and to keep their grip on the truth.  That's the point.  Not the traditions!  Either written or oral.  This is a conclusion to a discussion with many exhortations to the Thessalonians. 

The concept of tradition has been loaded down with a lot of cultural and ecclesiastical baggage over the centuries.  Paul did NOT have in mind a body of extrabiblical tradition (like the Judiazers and the RCC) that is equal to God's revelation in Scripture.  in Fact, the Bible condemns such human tradition.  The Greek word for traditions literally means "things handed down" and refers here to divine revelation.  The Thessalonians were to hold fast to what God had handed down both orally and in writing through Paul or from the other Apostles but it would not go past what was written.  In other words he's not going to give them something orally that contradicts the written word. 

What you're doing is transferring the authority of what was written here to the RCC and you can't do that.  There are NO successors.  To be an Apostle certain criteria had to be made and no one can meet that criteria after the first century.  Many of the traditions of the RCC directly either contradict scripture or have no origins in scripture.  They are no diff than the Pharisees of the first century all over again. 

lula posts:

KFC POSTS:

i WROTE:

POT is a manufactured, unBiblical body of teaching that has been passed on by Protestant teachers from one generation to the next.

Now, in that sentence, replace POT with Sola Scriptura, is a manufactured, unBIblical body of teaching that has been passed on by Protestant teachers from one generation to the next.

Now it is time for you to put up....

Where is "Sola Scriptura" found in Scripture? Where are the passages that teach  that the Holy Bible is the sole rule, guide and source of Christian faith?

You act some how that Paul would some how agree with you.  Which I find highly laughable!  1 Corithians 2:2 'For I am determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and HIM crucified.'

Paul wouldn't accept your heretical doctorine of replacement theology.  Here is Paul's thoughts Romans 11:14-15 'If somehow I might move to jealousy my country men and save them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world , what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?'  Paul also says 'The blessings that has come upon the Gentiles, what a greater blessings will come when the Jews come in the fulliness.'  What was Paul willing to give up for his fellow Israelites? Romans 9:1-5 'I am telling the truth in Jesus Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.  For I COULD WISH THAT I MYSELF WERE ACCURSED, SEPARATED FROM THE MESSIAH FOR THE SAKE OF MY BROTHERS, MY KINSMEN, according to the flesh , who are Israelities....' For Paul would know that the covenant with Israel will never end (Jeremiah31:36-37).  Does the sun still give light? Yes! Is there still a fixed order of mooon and stars for light by night? Yes!  Well I guess its still on.  Hence why Paul's intent was to make them jealous.

That erroneous teaching would go down the drain. Paul doesn't smoke 'POT' either so your right about that.  You keep saying that 'once save always saved' is 'POT'.  There is something that the RCC tried to pull called indulgences which when wealthy men would buy these indulgences this would ensure their salvation.  Those poor poppers were all screwed becaue their salvation wasn't secure.  This predates your 'POT' theory on that. 

Now onto your the pope, monks, and nuns.  Does the living G-D's religion have any of these? Negative.  This all have pagan origin.  Oh really? Yes, let's look at some quick examples: Dalai Lama means what: most high monk.  Nuns were Pagan temple prostitutes, covering themselves to keep from being recognized, who kept watch over the sacred fires.  In Zoroastrian ritual the men would wear black robes which got ashes all over them to keep the fire burning.  Monks wore read ceremonial robes symbolic of the fire fo the sun.  Pagans would burn their dead and the ashes and smoke would blacken their clothes.  Ashes becaome a symbol of mourning.  No, I'm not saying any of those people are bad or evil.  If you look at roaries they came about in 1090.  This started with a girl name 'Fatima' who saw an imagine of Mary and Mary gave the beads to her.  Mary worship came about around 400s.  Muslims and Buddhist have beads as well. 

The Original Roman Empire Flag had on it Mithras, the sun god.  Hold that thought.  Missa, is latin for departed and was spoken at the end of Catholic mass so it seems that the liturgical procedure stems from that.  Mass existed before RCC for it was what the pagan priests of Mithraism called their mass of the dead.  This was a 'sacra-mental' ritual of animal and human sacrifices on an indoor altar with the pagan worshippers assembled in 2 rows of benches with a center aisle (wow looks familiar).  Head pagan priest would lead this on the other end.  The word abracadabra was used during the Mithraic Mass wehn they changed a sun-shaped disc of bread into the sun and ate it (wow sounds familiar).  The Catholic priest does the same thing except he says 'hoc est corpus meum' which came about the phrase hocus-pocus which was used for any sleight of hand. The Mandaeans (Augustine was one before he converted.  These are sun worshippers.) also had something similar to the 7 sacraments.  They had baptism because they felt that baptism was necessary to fend off impurity.  They had communion sacrements with a disc representing the sun which was offered in the rememberance of the dead (this sounds familiar).  Man and Woman would take an unbreakable vow.  Priest had a holy order.

I could go on but my whole point is this why don't you pull out the plank of paganism in your own eye out first.

Lula, 

The P.P. is absolutely right.  The RCC is a mixture of paganism and Christianity mixed in that's why tradition is so important to the RCC. 

While making much of tradition the RC are never really able to define tradition.  What do Roman apologists mean when they assert the authority of tradition?  Historically they have not agreed among themselves about the nature and content of tradition. 

For example some Roman apologists have said that tradition does not add anything to Scripture.  But almost all RCC apologists after the Council of Trent argued that tradition does add to the Scriptures.  Some RCC apologists believe that all binding tradition was taught by the Apostles while others believe that tradition evolves and develops thru the centuries of the church.  it is impossible to know what the real RCC position is on this matter.  The Reformers discovered that tradition contradicted tradition.

Vatican II said :  "It is clear, therefore that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church in accord with God's most wise design are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." 

Basically if you listen well you will notice that the real authority for Rome is neither Scripture nor tradition but the church.  Because only the church can tell you what is Scripture and what it teaches. 

The Catechism teaches that the faithful must "read the Scripture within 'the living tradition of the whole Church'" (CCC113).  The Catechism at this point quotes " a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word."  (CCC113)

So basically tradiiton is not only made equal to Scripture but it becomes the TRUE Scripture, written not in documents but mystically within the Church herself.  When the Church speaks it is as if it were the voice of God giving the only true meaning to the words of the "documents and records."  Therefore traiditon utterly supplants and supercedes Scripture. 

The RCC not only believes in the replacement theory in that they are taking the position of the Jews, they have even take the place of Christ himself. 

Roman theologian John Eck said "The Scriptures are not authentic, except by the authority of the church." 

Really?  How odd because I don't get that from the easiest plainest reading of the scriptures.  In fact right in the first chapter of Revelation is a promise given to any who reads the contents of this book.  Just Psalm 119 alone contradicts that statement.

Pope Pius IX said at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870 "I am tradition."  What arrogance! He said what the rest of them were thinking like Wilson did when he  said "you lie" during Obama's speech the other day.     

For the RCC the only real authority is the church; sola ecclesia.  The reformers started to figure this out when they carefully studied the bible.  They began to discover that tradition contradicted the Bible.  For example just a few:

1.  The Bible teaches that all have sinned except Jesus (Rom 3:10-12, Heb 4:15) but RCC tradition says that Mary was sinless.

2.  The Bible teaches that Christ's sacrifice of himself was once and for all (Heb 7:27,9:28, 10:10) but tradition says that the priest sacrifices Chrst on the altar at mass.

3.  The Bible says that all Christians are saints and priests but tradition says they are only special castes within the RCC.

4.  The Bible says that Jesus is the ONLY Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5) but tradition says Mary is also a mediator.

5.  The Bible says that all Christians should know they have eternal life (1 John 5:13) but tradition says that all Christians cannot know they have eternal life. 

The Pharisees also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture.  In effect they made tradition superior to Scripture because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it.  Same as the RCC is doing today and has been for centuries. 

Whenever tradition is elevated to a high level of authority it evenutally becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture.  Jesus made this point when he confronted the Jewish leaders.  He showed that in many cases their traditons actually nullifed Scripture.  He rebuked them in very harsh terms.  Mark 7:6-13

Romes argument boils down to this:  we must believe Rome because Rome says so. 

Now normally I'd say this is a great question.  But the problem is we've been over this before.  Over and over.  So what's the point?  Why are you pushing the RCC traditions and beliefs down my throat everytime we get into what should be just a simple biblical discussion?  Wait.  Don't answer that because I do know the answer.  I just want you to think about it.

There's all kinds of routes I could go down to show you where sola scriptura is found in Scripture.  I could start when God gave the law to Moses and how it was in written form for a reason to make it permanent.  God made it very plain that the truth was not to be tampered with, augmented or diminished in any way.  "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it....Deut 4:2 12:32. 

Only the revealed and written Word of God and nothing else was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism.  Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him Ex 34:27 and this would become the basis for God covenant with the nation Ex 24:4,7.  The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant symbolizing its supreme authority.  God even told Joshua later...

"Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success whereever you go.  This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth Be but you shall mediate on it day and night so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it."  Josh 1:7-8  Sola Scriptura was established with the giving of the law.  No tradition passed down by word of mouth, no rabbinical opinion, and no priestly inovation was to be equal with recorded Scripture. 

I could go to the Proverbs and read:  "Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.  Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar."  Prov 30:5-6 

Pretty harsh warning so Lula if you're giving out teachings that go outside of scripture...be warned. 

I could go to the temptation of Christ and every single time he went to the scriptures saying "it is written; it is written."  He NEVER called on tradition in any of his teachings.  Never, in fact he did just the opposite and saved his most severe words for those following their traditions over the scriptures by adding their own version to God's already revealed written word. 

I could go to Paul who was teaching the Bareans in Acts 17 and see they did not take Paul's oral words for it.  They searched the scriptures to make sure what Paul was saying was truth.  It says they "examined the scriptures."  What was Paul's reaction?  Did he say that the Scriptures were not the only authority or that they were not clear?  Or that only He as an Apostlel or the Rabbis could tell them what the Scriptures really meant?  Or did he commend them for searching the scriptures?  Did he say that they shold not expect to find the truth in the Scriptures because they were incomplete and needed to be supplemented by tradition?  Was he insulted? 

Or I could go to Paul's letter to Timothy (now you have to know I'm going to get here sooner or later) when he said:

"...You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of knowing from whom you have lerned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.  All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for EVERY good work.  I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom; preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but wanting to have their ears tickled they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."  2 Timothy 3:12-4:5

Notice Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation (3:15).  He teaches that the Scriptures are useful for teaching, reproof, correcting, and training in righteousness (3:16).  The Scriptures are able to thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work (3:17).  Paul tells Timothy that he must preach this Word even though the time is coming when people will not want to hear it, but rather will want teachers to suit their fancy, who will instruct them in myths rather than tthe truth of the Word.  (4:1-4). 

In spite of the rich oral teaching Timothy had from Paul what does Paul say here?  Go to the Scriptures because the Scriptures are SUFFICIENT...sola scriptura!!!

KFC POSTS:

LULA POSTS

THEPEOPLE'SPARTY POSTS:

KFc wrongly asserted that Sacred Tradition is not different from those of the Pharisees. I think St.Paul would agree with me that KFC is wrong about that.

I went on to make that point in the rest of my post 771 which you ignored.  

Here it is again, 

 KFC posts: The RCC traditions are NO different than the traditions of the Pharisees of Jesus' times. They are traditions of men. Yes, men

Lula responds: And if it is as you say, then I'd love to have you debate that with St.Paul.

St.Paul commended the Thessalonians to "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word (oral), or by our epistle." (written). 2Thess. 2:14

Do you really believe that St.Paul would tell us to "stand fast and hold the traditions which we have learned, if they were the same as those of the Pharisee's of Jesus' times?

Yes, Sacred Tradition is Christ teaching men...those men are called Christ's Apostles and Tradition taught by the Apostles to their legitimate successors. Apostolic Tradition and their legitimate successors is through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that Christ promised to His Chruch until the end of time. It's all there in Scripture.

To KFC's assertion,  I made a counter and then asked a poignant question followed by a summary of my counter.  

Why don't you answer my question?

Why do you keep putting in the wrong scripture EVEN AFTER I pointed it out to you?  Isn't this proving that you really aren't listening Lula? 

So, what's the point? 

I am in the process of writing a forum in which amongst other things, I'll debate so called "replacement theory".

In the meantime, read the book of Acts and see that St.Paul was baptized into the New and Eternal Covenant in the Blood of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ,

In Christ Crucified, OLd Testament Isreal has become New Testament Isreal. The Old has become (not been replaced by) the New. 

 The Messias, the Christ is King of kings and Lord of Lords, who is reigning over only one kingdom, His kingdom ....New Isreal.

St.Paul was baptized into New Isreal.

Remember this: Our Lord Jesus Christ is the dividing line...your either with Him or against Him...and those who are against Him He said, will die in their sins.   

Here is 2Thess. 2:11-16...with v. 14 highlighted....

11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. 12 But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 13 Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, 16 Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.

How is it that I quoted the wrong Scripture?

kfc posts:

My point is I'm still waiting to have my question answered.

hERE'S THE WHOLE THING AGAIN....

I countered your erroneous assertion highlighted above, and then asked a poignant question followed by a summary of my counter.

Why don't you answer my question?