[quote]Why don't you answer my question?[/quote]

I DID.  You asked the question in #771 and I replied in #772.  Like I said...why bother answering you when you do not listen?

Here is my answer once again. 

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 by Paul 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. 

You may also want to read the last two entries I made regarding this subject.  Not to mention 1 Cor 4:6 where Paul tells them not to go beyond what is written. 

You're ONCE AGAIN Lula grabbing onto one verse which the RCC apologetics love and build a whole teaching around it.  The point here even is NOT traditions oral or written but to stand fast and not waver. 

The context is essential and one you keep forgetting.  The Thessalonians had been misled by a forged letter, supposedly from the Apostle Paul telling them that the day of the Lord had come already (2:2).  The entire church was upset and Paul was wanting to encourage them.  For one thing he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by false truth.  So he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him...it would be signed in his own hand; "I Paul write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write"  (3:17).  More than that he wanted them to stand fast in the teaching they had already received from him and the others.  "Do you remember that while I was still with you I was telling you these things?"  (2:5)

Certainly nothing here suggests that the tradition Paul delivered to the Thessalonians is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself.  Actually what we see here is antithetical to the position of the RCC tradition.  Paul is NOT encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to them via second or third hand reports.  ON THE CONTRARY, he was ordering them to receive as infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips. 

Now Lula you answer me this:

Where does Scripture ever suggest that there are unwritten truths that are necessary for our spiritual well being?  This is not it. 

Augustine himself said:

If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema." 

kfc posts 772

Exactly what Sacred Apostolic Tradition is KFC, yes, indeed, exacly what it is....Divine revelation. Divine Revelation comes in both written Word Scripture and unwritten Word (oral) Tradition.  It is both the unwritten Word and the written Word that St.Paul told the Thessalonians (and therefore us) to steadfastly keep.

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

 Sacred Tradition is distinguished  from other traditions...note the small "t".

The CHruch has other traditions, (again with small " t ", which involve dailly life and discipline;we call those living traditions...you named some:

Other CC traditions are the color of  vestments the priest wears for the Mass he is celebrating, the bells during the Mass, etc. These traditions are changeable, while Sacred oral Tradition cannot change and must be kept.  

St.Paul to the Thessalonians:  2Thess. 2:11-16....the context is clear and so is verse 14.

Read it.

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.

kfc posts:

St.Paul explicitly tells the Thessalonians what to do: hold the TRADITIONS, both by word of mouth (oral)  and written (epistles).

 Verses 11-13,  St. Paul tells the Thessalonians to be thankful to God and keep faith of the truth (or as you say, hold their spiritual ground and keep their grip on the truth.) Then that is followed by verse 14 where St.Paul tells them HOW to keep faith of the truth..."Therefore" St.Paul tells them, "stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word (of mouth= oral) or by our epistle ( written word).

So, what does St.Paul teach are the two sources are of keeping "faith of the truth"? So, what does St.Paul teach are the two sources of holding their spiritual ground and keeping their grip on the truth? Verse clearly gives the answer...by holding the traditions which they have learned, whether by word or our epistle.

kfc posts:

THis tells me that you don't even understand the correct meaning of this passage grammatically. The main object of verse 14 is traditionsl.

St. Paul told the Thessalonians to stand fast and not waver from holding both oral and written traditions.

I'm guessing neither of you can read greek.  The word that is being discussed here is: παραδίδωμι and the word before it is κρατειτε .  The κρατειτε is imperative of krateo which means to have a tight hold/grip on a thing you can see this in Mark 1:31. This word would be used in the athletic competition of passing the baton. Now παραδίδωμι means literally handed over to someone.  Again, it would be like me passing the baton to my teammate so that they could start running.  With that in mind for it to be valid it must be handed over to which can be seen in 1 Corithians 15:2 and must be derive from the L-RD which can also be seen in 1 Corinthians 11:23.  It was around before Paul hence why the L-RD handed it to Paul. Now if you look at 1 Corinthians 15:3 'For I delivered to you what I received in the first place, that Jesus Christ DIED for sins, which ARE ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE.'

If you are going to elevate tradition to the level of scripture then 10 verses that need to be looked at: Matthew 15:2-3,6; Mark 7:5,8-9,13; Galatians 1:14; Col 2:8.

I would ask you if every Apostles saying and action are inspired?  You have said so in previous post, well then we should look at Galatians 2:11-14 and what happened with Peter.

Finally, no tradition of the apostles except their written word can be proved genuine on satisfactory evidence. I will not abide in any thing else for it appears most of what we are talking about are PAGAN in origin.  I will not be bowing down to the Sun god or be partaking in anything that is in the guise of Christianity but is of Pagan origin. Neither today nor tomorrow as the L-RD wills.

THEPEOPLE'SPARTYPOSTS:

thepeoples party posts:

Agree completely with you. In the instance of the text found in 2Thess. 2:14-15, the Greek word, krateite, translated "hold' means to be strong, mighty and prevail. This language demonstrates St.Paul is emphatic and demonstrates the importance of maintaining these traditions. 

1Cor. 15:3 , 'if you hold fast after what manner I preached to you, ...." bears out my point as well...that Apostolic Tradition is true revelation handed down by Christ to the Apostles and they in turn to their legitimate successors such as the book of Acts describes.

15:3 "...which are according to Scripture" would be the Old Testament Scriptures he was referring to....Isaias 53:5 I think.

kfc posts:

only in the minds of people who don't understand the differences between Sacred Tradition, legitimate ecclesiastical traditions, and traditions of men that Christ rebuked.

kfc posts:

As far as transferring the authority, you should really pay attention to St. Matt. 18:15-18 where we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It's extremely telling that Our Lord identifies the Chruch, rather than Scriputre as the final authority, to be appealed to. He Himself says that if the offending brother "will not hear the Chruch, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."..that is, treat him as an outsider who is lost.

Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasises the Church's infallible teaching authority in verse 18, by repeating His earlier statement about His giving the Chruch the power to "bind and loose". St.Matt. 16:18-19 directing it this time to the Apostles as a group rahter than just to St.Peter. 

As far as traditions literally meaning "things handed down", you said earlier that I base my argument around  just one verse, that of 2Thess. 2:14-15, where St.Paul expressly teaches that Christians must believe not only what he wrote but what he preached.

Here are a few more that not only prooof text Sacred Tradition but also that the Apostles handed it down to their legitimate successors.

"The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit (legitimate) to teach others also."

Here is the handing down of Sacred Tradition to other "faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also."

Christ promised He would be with His teaching Church and the gates of Hell would not prevail until the end of the world". Well, the Apostles weren't immortal men, must appoint other faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also, thus their successors...the story of the Apostles appointing their successors by the laying on of hands is found in the Book of Acts, which is actual history of the beginnings of the Church.

"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 (tradition) committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost." 2Tim. 1: 13-14.

Note...his last sentence. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the HOly Ghost." That's powerful proof text that the handing down of Sacred Tradition is protected by the Holy Ghost.

Apostolic Sacred Traditions have been steadfastly held and transmitted from the time of Christ and the Apostles by a continuous succession.

It's all Scriptural..many passages tells us the Divine teaching of Christ is transmitted to us by teachers accreditied by God. St.Matt. 28:18-19 speaks of the Apostolate as a divinely authorized teaching of the whole doctrine of Christ to all men of all times to the end of the world.

St.Mark speaks of the divine sanction given this "preaching": "Go ye into the whold world and preach this Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned."

St.Luke speaks of the Apostolate of "preaching in Christ's name to all nations and declares the Apostles authentic witnesses of a divine revelation which is infallibly guaranteed by the HOly Ghost.

KFC Posts:

Yes, with the death of the last Apostle, there is no more new public revelation.

However, Sacred Tradition is not new public revelation...it's the continuation of teaching of what was already revealed. Sacred Tradition is one way in which the truths of Christ are steadfastly kept and handed down through the ages.

How are we assured Sacred tradition is truth of Christ and cannot go astray? St.John speaks of Christ's appointment of St.Peter as the head of His teaching Apostolic Church with power to feed His flock with Divine Truth 21:15-17. At the Last Supper Christ emphasizes the infallibility of the Apostles' perpetual preaching under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. "I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive. He shall abide with you and be in you." 14:16-17.

This Apostolate was not for the Apostles alone, but for their successors who were always to be received as Christ Himself, "He that hearteth you, heareth Me, and he that despitheth you, despitheth Me and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him who sent Me." St.Luke 10:16.

KFC posts:

Beside 2 Thess. 2:14-15, there is

"The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit (legitimate) to teach others also." 2Tim. 2:2. And who is Timothy btw? He's a successor of St.Paul! As in Apostolic succession.

"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 (tradition) committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost." 2Tim. 1: 13-14.

There's more, but as you keep saying, "what's the point?"

With me, if you quote one of the Saints of the Church, please cite the source.

St.Augustine wrote "I would not believe the Gospel itself, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

(Contra Epist. Fundam. i, 6.)

What you fail to understand is that Sacred oral Tradition can never be contradictory to Scriputre because it comes from Christ to the Apostles and handed down by the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit as Christ promised...it can't be contradicitory because there is but One Holy Spirit. 

“A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ  to give grace.”

(but not evidenced by any Scripture somehow!)

     “The Church itself is a sacrament instituted by Christ to give grace.  Jesus gave us His Apostles and His Church to minister the seven sacraments to help us lead a good life in this world, and to help us reach Him in the afterlife.”

     “As they (the sacraments) evolved from the earliest traditions of the Church, the Eastern and Roman Catholic as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches all recognize the seven sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.”

“Confirmation (or Chrismation) is the sacrament which gives the Holy Spirit.”

Let's take a look at the Romans shall we.  Mithraism is about the worship of the sun, which was titled Mithras Solis Invictus (Mithras, the unconquered sun). The “mysteries” of this religion were revealed only to the initiates, who were predominately soldiers of the Roman army. They spread this religion all over the civilized world by way of the good Roman roads. Mithraism was the primary religion of the Roman Empire from BCE 222 through the 4th century CE. It was the chief rival of “Christianity”, which history shows compromised radically in order to convert pagans into “believers”. By the 4th century CE, Christianity/gnostism began to compete with Mithraism for dominance. Christians in Rome were persecuted not so much for their profession of faith in Jesus Christ, but because they would not include pagan deities in their faith as well. The doctrines, feast dates, rituals, accouterments, and organizational structure have scarcely changed at all and were incorporated into Christianity. The religion of Mithraism itself was the result of a merger of the astrology of the Chaldean priests of Marduk (Baal) with the Indo-Iranian priests of Mithras. The sun-idol is called “THE LORD” in both.

The Vatican has a large brazen obelisk at the center of St. Peter's square that was brought to the church from Heliopolis (aka Egypt, by the Roman emperor Caligula.  The obelisk is a phallic symbol that dedicates the RCC to sun worship.


SUN (some) more MITHRAIC DOCTRINE

  The center of the Mithraic sun-cult was at Rome.

 The leader of the ritual service was titled pater, Latin for father - inherited by the priestcraft of Catholicism

  There was a Pater-Patratus over the paters; a papa, or pope. 
 
 The pater (father) stood at one end of an oblong room, performing mysterious blood rituals; there was an indoor “altar” at his end, on which the victim (latin, “host”) was sacrificed. They had a sun-shaped wafer disc like the Egyptians, and the assembly knelt, sat, and stood in unison. I explained in a previous post of how the wafer is magically changed.

You can have and keep your Paganism. I DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR PAGANISM.  I will only bend my knew to the living G-D .  All the RCC has done was repackage paganism and renamed the labels.  Let's call it like it is.  Its Christian Paganism.  KFC and I aren't buying it nor are we interested in purchasing it. I was raised in an atheistic household.  I examined and looked at a lot of different religions.  I am fairly familar with a variety of different types of Paganism.  I can see that you are steeped in Paganism.  Saying your 'hocus pocus' bread/wine changes into the body/blood.   I have nothing against you (except the Paganism you support).  Actually I enjoy it when we are on the same side bashing the same individual because at times you say/type things that I am about to type to an individual.

You can have your fun in the sun. I will stay in the shadow of the living G-D and HIS prophecied SON.

Your reply of 776 was long, but no cigar as far as answering the question. That's because Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unBiblical, erroneous belief which must be wholly rejected. How do I know this..because Luther employed his own private interpretation of Scripture to come up with Sola Scriptura. And what happened within Protestantism when Luther put forth his new doctrine of Sola Scriptura and view of private interpretation? The leaders of other sects denied Luther's private interpretation as true and came up with their own. Luther said it himself in 1525, "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with Baptism; another denies the Sacrament; another believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Ghost, and he himself a prophet." Grisar, Luther, iv., 386-407.

There are no passages in Scripture that teach that the Bible is the only source of faith.

kfc posts:

And anyone who knows even a smidgeon about the Old Law, knows that it's not the average Jew that learned Judaism by reading Old Testament Scripture...didn't happen.  Almighty 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 shall 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."

You cite the admonition not to add or subtract words in Deut 4: 2. But you haven't thought this through and misinterpret what Deut. 4:2 means. If you were to apply a parallel interpretation to this verse, then anything in the Holy Bible beyond the decrees of the Old Testament law would be considered non-canonical or not authentic Scripture ----and gulp...that would include the entire 27 Books of the New Testament

No, you be warned...Sola Scriptura is a heretical doctrine outside of Scripture. Christ never, ever taught that the Holy Bible is only rule of His Faith.

The prohibition in Deut. 4:2 against adding or subtracting from the word of God therefore cannot mean that Christians are forbidden to look to anything outside the Bible for the source of truth. Deut. 4:2 fails as a passage that teaches Sola Scriptura. C'mon, the Bible itself calls "the Church the pillar and ground of truth."  1Tim. 3:15.

I'll respond to other points of 776 later.

EXACTLY.  I feel the same here.  The RCC is a mixture of paganism and Christianity going all the way to the 4th century.  Basically the whole thing was a business decision.  If you can't beat them, join them.  Before the inception of the RCC the same leaders were killing the Christians.  

Continuing my rebuttal of your post 776 regarding Sola Scriptura

KFC POSTS:

KFC,  you say, Sola Scriptura was established with the giving of the law.

And this is a fallacy if there ever was one. Since Sola Scriptura is unBiblical, it could not have originated with the giving of the Law. Check history....Sola Scripture, one of Protestantism' main belief systems, was originated by Martin Luther in the 1500s and handed down through the centuries by Protestant oral tradition.

What is Biblical is that Sacred Tradition and Oral Tradition were the two teaching authorites within Old Testament Judaism.

In the OT, God gave authority to the priests to interpret His laws and issue binding doctrine through both Oral Tradtion and Scriptures. Deut. 17:8-12. Two examples of authoritative oral Tradition at work alongside OT Scriputre is found in 2Chronicles 29:25  and 2Chronicles 35:4.  These two passages are direct evidence against Sola Scriptura becasue God commanded these reforms based upon oral Tradition preserved many centuries before 2 Chronicles had been written. And they aren't found anywhere else in the OT, yet Hezekiah clearly regarded them as authoritative and binding.

Also, don't forget that the Lord God had established a heirarchy, priests, prophets and kings, where He charged each group with the job of promulagating, explicating and enforcing the Divine precepts taht were being set down in Scripture.

And further, no individual Jew had a personal copy of Scripture as they were rare and reserved for only the Temple priests, the king, and the synagogues, priests and prophets to give its interpretation.

To sum up...there are no OT examples of Scripture functioning alone, apart from, or interpretated from variance with the authoritative tradition of the Old Testament heirarchy of priests and prophets.   

Let's take a look at how supposedly that solely Scipture is Protestant.  Meanwhile your doctrine came about during the council of Trent.

Let's take a look as to when solely Scripture authority came about.  You stated that it came about during Martin Luther which is very convient for you.  Now I wonder what the 1st Century church believed?

When I take a look at Polycarp (I personally like him because he knew/was a disciple of John the Apostle), Clement, Ignatius, and Barnabus, all these men taught Scripture and defended it against heresies.  In doing this, their sole appeal for authoirty was Scripture. For Irenaus this is where we first see the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching. Irenaeus stated emphatically that all the teachings of the Apostles that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.  So all this doctrine WAS DERIVED FROM SCRIPTURE (MEANING SCRIPTURE DICTATED IT).  There is NO DOCTRINE that is referred to as apstolic tradition that was NOT ROOTED IN SCRIPTURE!  To put it in laymen's term (latin vulgate) these were simply teaching of Scripture!

You can see this with Cyril of Jerusalem. He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures.  His teaching thoroughly grounded in Scripture.  There is in fact NOT ONE APPEAL in the ENTIRETY of the lectures to an oral apostolic tradition that is indepentent of Scripture.  He states in very clear terms that any teaching not based in Scripture were rejected and this fact confirms to his conformity to written Scriptures were the sole authority!

Who were these guys contending with? The gnostics because the gnostics were the ones who suggested and taught that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture.  HMMMM sound very familiar.

Around the 2nd Century, Polycarp (a man I love to read) got into a debate over if the resurrection of Jesus should be celebrated during the Passover (WHEN IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED MIGHT I ADD.  Polycarp was also for Believers keeping Passover as well).  He was FOR THAT BECAUSE JOHN KEPT IT LIKE THAT.  There was an individual (Anicetus) who was a against that and felt that Believers shouldn't interfer with Jewish holydays and should have little to do with these days.  I wonder were this guys was from, OH HE WAS FROM ROME!  What a stinkin surprise, YEAH NOT REALLY! This is were the pagan orientated church follows it as well even though Polycarp a disciple of John the Apostle was saying that was wrong.  I thought these were the teaching of the Apostles.

You keep bringing up that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 shows that Scripture being sole authority is false since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. Please can you show me which doctrines Paul is referring to here which you claim to possess.  (this is very gnostic like and MITHRAIC like since only a few will be enlightened). 

The teaching of a separate body of apostolic revelation known as Tradition that is oral in nature originated not with the Christian Church but rather with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the Gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of Apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the Apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation.

As for me, I will keep the Scriptures.  I will examine everything through the COMPLETE Holy Scriptures.  You can keep your PAGAN (Gnostic I might add as well) traditions and your Pagan (Greco-Roman Gnostic) thinking.  The living G-D does not delight in the kingdom of pagans though HE does love them and wishes to embrace them.  HE hates their practices.

I really studied this at length when I studied the book of Colossians a while back.  The background here was gnosticism which was rampant.  The theme of that book in answering the gnostics was the supremacy and all sufficiency of Christ.  Christ, is the Word and His Word was written down for our benefit.  It's all that's needed.  It's all sufficient as He is all sufficient.  It's our compass, our roadmap.  Without it we can't be certain of anything. 

Excellent last post Peoples.  I also have studied this history over the years and agree completely although I didn't know about the Passover controversy. 

no, not at all..  Did you not read the verse?  It says:  "You shall not add to the word which I command you..."   It says nothing about OT or NT or anything.  It basically says we are not to go beyond what is written because the writers of both the OT and the NT were instructed to write these things down.  This same warning against adding to or abridging God's word is repeated in 12:32 and Rev 22:18-19.  This includes the words in the NT because they have been proven to be authentic or canonical. 

They did learn by having it read to them in general assemblies.  They would get together and read it as a group.  There were no printing presses back then so no, not everyone had their own OT to read.  What's that got to do with anything?  What diff is it if they read aloud to the whole group or if one read it by himself?  God did say this to all in Israel...not just the Priests:

"And these words which I command you this day shall be in your heart.  And you shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.  And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand and they shall be a frontlets between your eyes.  And you shall write them upon the posts of your house on your gates."  Deut 6 

Even the oral teaching from Father to Son came from the written law.  That's the only kind of tradition that is accepted Lula.  It has to come from what is already written.  It cannot contradict it.  Much of the RCC tradition contradicts Scripture. 

I know I've got you cornered when you resort to Luther.  I never quoted Luther.  I quoted Scripture. You do it each time you don't have an answer.  You bash Luther.   I gave you an honest fair answer in 776.  I answered your question using Scripture...not Luther. 

I just showed you where it was starting from Moses onward. Look again at #776.  Ok..so you don't believe it.  Believe what you wish. I notice you answered part of what I wrote and ignored the rest.   Sola Scriptura is very biblical.  Paul said to not go beyond what was written.  Even Jesus always went to the written word.  NOT ONCE did he call on Tradition. No answer for that Lula? 

Where's the oral tradition here?  I looked and looked and don't see it.  This section (8-13) has to do with any case (v8) that proved to difficult for the local court to decide was taken to the priests and judges at the cental sanctuary.  But their judgments had nothing to do with any oral tradition.  It's about them giving a sentence for breaking a law that was already put in place by God in his book of the law.  It even says in v11..."according to the sentence of the law."  Nothing about traditon here Lula. I've already showed you how the law was dictated by God himself and WRITTEN DOWN by Moses as ordered by God himself. 

and that changed as you well know with the veil of the Temple being rent in two.  That meant immediate access to God without the benefit of a Priest as mediator.  We know have Christ as our mediator.  Many  Jewish Priests came to faith in Christ that day and the days following as a result of this.   They recognized that this was a sure sign from God. 

Like I said the book of Revelation even says any who reads it is given an extra blessing.  The Words of the Scriptures are to be read and those who do are commended to do so...Acts 17.  Jesus even said to "search the scriptures." 

Which is part of Priestcraft. Although you might want to change the word "benefit", as it implies it was a good thing. There should not be anything or anyone between a person and God.

KFC,

My original question to you was: 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?

In post 776, you wrote:

lula posts:

kfc posts:

First, a careful reading of Joshua 1:7-8 reveals that it does not teach that the Bible is the sole guide, source and rule of Faith (Sola Scriptura). You cannot retroject Sola Scriptura back into the pages of the Old Testament.

Second, your claim that "Sola Scriptura was established with the giving of the law" is as believable as the cow jumped over the moon. In other words, not believable at all. An examination of actual history will reveal Sola Scriptura appeared much, much later in time. The fact is the historical record is silent on the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura prior to the 14th century.

 As difficult a reality as it must be for you to face, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura did not exist prior to John Wycliffe (forerunner of Protestantism) in the 14th century and didn't become widespread until Martin Luther came alone in the 16th century and began setting up his own "traditions of men" in place of authentic Christian teachings.

Sola Scriptura lacks the historical continuity which marks legitimate Apostolic teaching. As a matter of fact, it actually represents an abrupt change, a radical break with Apostolic teaching.

That Sola Scriptura was originated by Martin Luther is telling the truth, not Luther bashing.....so why you figure you have me cornered is a puzzle to me. It's historical truth that you prefer to ignore and deny.