-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
James was the bishop in Jerusalem and Peter was at Antioch for a time. Besides the journeys of Paul scripture is largely silent on where the other Apostles went; most of the time they are only mentioned at a certain place because Paul was also there. You aren't going to find the answer to Peter being a bishop of Rome in scripture; this is one area where tradition fills in the gaps, and the ancient sources unanimously state that Peter was in fact a bishop in Rome.
Once again my view point is very simple. If Peter had been a Bishop of a Church in Rome it would have been stated in the Bible. He may have been the one who originally started a Church there, but it was as a Apostle for Christ, not a Bishop which usually is a permanent member & in a position of leadership in a Church. Peter & all the Apostles were more like the old Tent revival Evangelists, & not permanent members of any Church.
S
I think I'll turn to the time honored phrase of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Just because the Bible doesn't state it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Bishops don't have to be permanently tied to one particular city and the Apostles certainly were leaders in the churches, Paul being an exception. Why establish a church and leave it without a shepherd to ward off the wolves? Especially in a city like Rome where the persecution was extreme.
E
I think Scripture is clear that there were leaders in each city church. There were three leaders in the jerusalem church (peter james and john) Paul established lead3ers in other churches (timothy comes to mind)
Scripture also makes it clear that Peter was the apostle for the jews, where as Paul was the apostle sent to the gentiles. Although Peter may have started the church in rome, It does not mean he was the leader and did not establish a leader there. Especially since his ministry was in Jerusalem. This is where God placed him. Paul knew and understood it as did other NT churches.
I think something as important as God establishing his church in Rome and placing one person as head of not only that church but all churches would have been important enough to place in his word. Since it was the guildine in which all churches came to use as their instructions. This is why God had the apostles write down in words the struggles the churches had. We have the same struggles today. The churches have always had the same struggles. Which is why God made sure his will was placed in his word so no one, or no church could usurp Gods authority and change it do to their own desires. Which unfortunately still happened, and happens today because people misinterpret the word, Add to it. and distort it to their own desires.
Scripture also makes it clear that Peter was the apostle for the jews, where as Paul was the apostle sent to the gentiles. Although Peter may have started the church in rome, It does not mean he was the leader and did not establish a leader there. Especially since his ministry was in Jerusalem. This is where God placed him. Paul knew and understood it as did other NT churches.
I think something as important as God establishing his church in Rome and placing one person as head of not only that church but all churches would have been important enough to place in his word. Since it was the guildine in which all churches came to use as their instructions. This is why God had the apostles write down in words the struggles the churches had. We have the same struggles today. The churches have always had the same struggles. Which is why God made sure his will was placed in his word so no one, or no church could usurp Gods authority and change it do to their own desires. Which unfortunately still happened, and happens today because people misinterpret the word, Add to it. and distort it to their own desires.
S
If everything we need to believe to be Christians needs to be in the Bible, the Bible itself would say, "Go by the Bible alone." Does the Bible say this? No! It does not! 2 Thess. 2:15 says there are also spoken traditions of the Apostles that we are to keep. Tradition says Peter was in Antioch and in Rome. The Bible tells us to follow tradition (2 Thess 2:15).
S
Dear friends,
Dear Santo Subito and Roman Catholic friends,
Dear Cleante and Zossima and Eastern Orthodox friends,
Recommended reading on the schism between Rome and Orthodoxy:
Cleenewerck, Laurent. (2007). HIS BROKEN BODY: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (An Orthodox Perspective),
The Euclid Consortium / (Pôle d'Extension Universitaire Euclide) - Home of the Distance (Online) Master's Degree in Diplomacy and International Affairs Self Publishing and Book Printing Solutions - Books, EBooks, Photo books and Calendars at Lulu.com
God bless you all. In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington
Dear Santo Subito and Roman Catholic friends,
Dear Cleante and Zossima and Eastern Orthodox friends,
Recommended reading on the schism between Rome and Orthodoxy:
Cleenewerck, Laurent. (2007). HIS BROKEN BODY: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (An Orthodox Perspective),
The Euclid Consortium / (Pôle d'Extension Universitaire Euclide) - Home of the Distance (Online) Master's Degree in Diplomacy and International Affairs Self Publishing and Book Printing Solutions - Books, EBooks, Photo books and Calendars at Lulu.com
God bless you all. In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington
the reason Paul spoke of "traditions" is because the canon was not completed Scott. that which is perfect had not come.
there's nothing wrong with traditions or cultural flavor. we are all different: but if we are not unified by the infallibility and sufficiency of God's Word, then we are essentially saying there must be something (or someone) else which is infallible and sufficient. mariolatry is one example of how far things can go.
2 Timothy 3
All Scripture Is Breathed Out by God
10 You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whoma you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of Godb may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Peter saw the Glorified Jesus! and yet, he said his testimony of that (for us) should be superceded by something even more sure:
2 Peter 1:19
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts....
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
there's nothing wrong with traditions or cultural flavor. we are all different: but if we are not unified by the infallibility and sufficiency of God's Word, then we are essentially saying there must be something (or someone) else which is infallible and sufficient. mariolatry is one example of how far things can go.
2 Timothy 3
All Scripture Is Breathed Out by God
10 You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whoma you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of Godb may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Peter saw the Glorified Jesus! and yet, he said his testimony of that (for us) should be superceded by something even more sure:
2 Peter 1:19
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts....
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
S
The reason Saint Paul spoke of traditions is because he intended for the Church and Christians to listen to the preaching of the Apostles, including those Apostles who wrote nothing, such as Andrew, Bartholomew, Philip, Thomas, and so on. These Apostles, too, handed down traditions in their words, in their preaching, which the whole church was to keep. It has nothing to do with the NT being "perfect" and "complete". Yes, the NT is reliable, but its infallible teaching is understood rightly only in the context of a saving relationship with God in Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit. A man who does not have the Holy Spirit may twist the Scriptures, and misunderstand them. A Christian needs the living tradition of the Holy Spirit in the Church. A Christian needs other Christians to guide him. He needs to believe what all Christians of all times and places believed. St. Paul, St. Peter, St. John, St. James, did not intend for all knowledge to be limited to the words of the NT. The early Church was given more than this. It was also given oral traditions handed down by the 12 apostles. These continue today in the Orthodox Church.
How can sola Scriptura solve the following problem?
What are the number and nature of the sacraments of the Church?
Some say 2, some 3, some 7.
What is the truth?
Using the Bible alone, people will find differing answers.
Yet Christ demands (commands) doctrinal unity among all Christians.
Obviously, something is missing from those who insist on sola Scriptura, but cannot
agree among themselves what all the Scriptures teach.
Take care.
In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington
How can sola Scriptura solve the following problem?
What are the number and nature of the sacraments of the Church?
Some say 2, some 3, some 7.
What is the truth?
Using the Bible alone, people will find differing answers.
Yet Christ demands (commands) doctrinal unity among all Christians.
Obviously, something is missing from those who insist on sola Scriptura, but cannot
agree among themselves what all the Scriptures teach.
Take care.
In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington
please provide one scrap of evidence for any words or traditions proven to be taught by Andrew, Bartholomew, Philip, Thomas.
the NT (whole Bible) is perfect and complete Scott.
SOLA SCRIPTURA.
that's right that it can't be understood without the Holy Spirit.
do you have The Holy Spirit?
please show me. in writing.
document anywhere that we have ANY authoritative traditions that have been handed down ORALLY.
THE JEWS CLAIM THIS ABOUT THE TALMUD.
do you place these so-called oral traditions on par with canon?
Baptism, Lord's Supper, The Word.
what does OC say?
the NT (whole Bible) is perfect and complete Scott.
SOLA SCRIPTURA.
that's right that it can't be understood without the Holy Spirit.
do you have The Holy Spirit?
please show me. in writing.
document anywhere that we have ANY authoritative traditions that have been handed down ORALLY.
THE JEWS CLAIM THIS ABOUT THE TALMUD.
do you place these so-called oral traditions on par with canon?
Baptism, Lord's Supper, The Word.
what does OC say?
S
When did the Church begin? 30 AD
What did the Church teach from the beginning? 7 sacraments. These are mentioned in many parts of the NT.
When did men start saying there is only baptism and communion?
It started with the morningstar of the Protestant Reformation, John Wycliffe, continued with Jan (John) Huss, and culminated in Martin Luther, Hudlrych Zwingli, and John Calvin, John Knox. These men denied there are 7 sacraments. Go figure. The Reformation of Martin Luther was influenced by the philosophy of nominalism, the idea that we cannot know ultimate reality. Theological agnosticism and relativism, and skepticism, private interpretation of Scripture, with an attitude like, "It's my Bible! Leave me alone! I don't care what anyone else thinks (about the Bible)! I have the truth!". This attitude can affect (infect) anyone, but it is a by-product of the false notion of "sola scriptura", which means "the Bible alone according to my own personal interpretation of it". Go figure!
If you really want to know what the OC says, talk to an Orthodox priest. Read Orthodox books. If you can read the Bible for yourself, you really can read what the OC says. Go online and look under the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archiocese of North America, The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, the Orthodox Church in America, and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. See their websites. See also especially
Home :: Orthodox Christian Information Center
If you can produce a document from the 1st century AD that shows the early Christians believed in only 2 sacraments, we should then believe it. But if there is no patristic evidence for such a view, why believe it? We should read the NT the way the early Church (100-500 AD) read the NT. If we read the first 500 years of Christian Church history, we can find all the great doctrines of the historic Christian faith: The Trinity, the Incarnation (Deity) of Christ, the seven sacraments, baptism by trine immersion, denial of sola Scriptura, prayers for the intercession of the saints, the veneration of the ever-virgin Mary, and of the saints, icons, Scripture and tradition, the two natures of Christ, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, the single procession of the Holy Spirit, and all the other major Christian doctrines the OC has always believed.
None of the distinctive Evangelical Protestant views are found in the early Church Fathers.
The main thing Protestants and the Orthodox Church have in common is the denial of papal Roman supremacy and infallibility. Take care. Protestantism borrows some of its ideas from either Roman Catholicism or from Eastern Orthodoxy. And it gets its basic philosophy from Augustine of Hippo. So Augustine's mistakes are transferred to the German and French, Scottish, British Reformers, including the Filioque heresy. Go figure. ...... ...... .....
God save us.
What did the Church teach from the beginning? 7 sacraments. These are mentioned in many parts of the NT.
When did men start saying there is only baptism and communion?
It started with the morningstar of the Protestant Reformation, John Wycliffe, continued with Jan (John) Huss, and culminated in Martin Luther, Hudlrych Zwingli, and John Calvin, John Knox. These men denied there are 7 sacraments. Go figure. The Reformation of Martin Luther was influenced by the philosophy of nominalism, the idea that we cannot know ultimate reality. Theological agnosticism and relativism, and skepticism, private interpretation of Scripture, with an attitude like, "It's my Bible! Leave me alone! I don't care what anyone else thinks (about the Bible)! I have the truth!". This attitude can affect (infect) anyone, but it is a by-product of the false notion of "sola scriptura", which means "the Bible alone according to my own personal interpretation of it". Go figure!
If you really want to know what the OC says, talk to an Orthodox priest. Read Orthodox books. If you can read the Bible for yourself, you really can read what the OC says. Go online and look under the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archiocese of North America, The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, the Orthodox Church in America, and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. See their websites. See also especially
Home :: Orthodox Christian Information Center
If you can produce a document from the 1st century AD that shows the early Christians believed in only 2 sacraments, we should then believe it. But if there is no patristic evidence for such a view, why believe it? We should read the NT the way the early Church (100-500 AD) read the NT. If we read the first 500 years of Christian Church history, we can find all the great doctrines of the historic Christian faith: The Trinity, the Incarnation (Deity) of Christ, the seven sacraments, baptism by trine immersion, denial of sola Scriptura, prayers for the intercession of the saints, the veneration of the ever-virgin Mary, and of the saints, icons, Scripture and tradition, the two natures of Christ, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, the single procession of the Holy Spirit, and all the other major Christian doctrines the OC has always believed.
None of the distinctive Evangelical Protestant views are found in the early Church Fathers.
The main thing Protestants and the Orthodox Church have in common is the denial of papal Roman supremacy and infallibility. Take care. Protestantism borrows some of its ideas from either Roman Catholicism or from Eastern Orthodoxy. And it gets its basic philosophy from Augustine of Hippo. So Augustine's mistakes are transferred to the German and French, Scottish, British Reformers, including the Filioque heresy. Go figure. ...... ...... .....
God save us.
S
Dear Zone, Are we to assume that the other Apostles who did not write any thing down
did not preach Christ exactly the same way St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John,
St. James, St. Peter, and St. Jude, and St. Paul preached Christ?
See: McBirnie, William Steuart, B.A., B.D., M.R.E., D.R.E., Ph.D., O.S.J., F.R.G.S. (1973). The
Search For the Twelve Apostles. Wheaton, IL: Living Books/ Tyndale House Publishers,
Inc.
See also:
"The Astounding Missionary Journeys of the Apostle Andrew", Road to Emmaus: A
Journal of Orthodox Faith and Culture, Volume V, No. 4 (Fall 2004) (#19), pages
2-55. "Saint Andrew and the Miraculous Isle of Valaam", by Saint Ignaty Brianchaninov,
op.cit., p. 57.
God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
did not preach Christ exactly the same way St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John,
St. James, St. Peter, and St. Jude, and St. Paul preached Christ?
See: McBirnie, William Steuart, B.A., B.D., M.R.E., D.R.E., Ph.D., O.S.J., F.R.G.S. (1973). The
Search For the Twelve Apostles. Wheaton, IL: Living Books/ Tyndale House Publishers,
Inc.
See also:
"The Astounding Missionary Journeys of the Apostle Andrew", Road to Emmaus: A
Journal of Orthodox Faith and Culture, Volume V, No. 4 (Fall 2004) (#19), pages
2-55. "Saint Andrew and the Miraculous Isle of Valaam", by Saint Ignaty Brianchaninov,
op.cit., p. 57.
God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
S
[quote=zone;439868]please provide one scrap of evidence for any words or traditions proven to be taught by Andrew, Bartholomew, Philip, Thomas.
the NT (whole Bible) is perfect and complete Scott.
SOLA SCRIPTURA.
that's right that it can't be understood without the Holy Spirit.
do you have The Holy Spirit?
please show me. in writing.
document anywhere that we have ANY authoritative traditions that have been handed
down ORALLY.
THE JEWS CLAIM THIS ABOUT THE TALMUD.
do you place these so-called oral traditions on par with canon?
Baptism, Lord's Supper, The Word.
what does OC say?[/quote]
Dear Zone, If you require documentation in writing, go to your local library, and get
an ILL. If you ask, for a small fee they will provide you with an ILL (Inter-library loan).
You can get the beginning volumes of the collected lives of the saints of the Church
compiled by Saint Dimitry of Rostov of Russia. See volume III, November, of "The Great
Collection of the Lives of the Saints" by Saint Dimitry of Rostov (1651-1709). See entry
under Saint Andrew for November 30. The other of the twelve apostles have a feast day
in the Orthodox Church. For more information see an Orthodox Church calendar. See es-
pecially "Old Orthodox Prayer Book: Second Edition. Copyright 2001, Archpriest Pimen
Simon, Russian Orthodox Church of the Nativity of Christ (Old Rite), Erie, PA, USA.
I would recommend you read W. Steuart McBirnie's book on the twelve apostles. All the
information we have about what the twelve apostles said and did comes down from oral
(spoken) traditions preserved only in the Orthodox Catholic Church? What is the Orthodox
Catholic Church? It is the pre-schism Christian Church as she existed from 30 AD to
1054 AD in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. When papal
Rome was still Orthodox Christian. Rome, too, inherited the correct traditions of the
twelve apostles of Christ; but later, Rome changed and fell away from the Orthodox Faith
"once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3), and began introducing some innovations and
heresies of her own. St. Andrew was martyred in the city of Patras, in Greece, under one
of the Roman emperors, and was tied on ropes to an X shaped cross. He died after
several days of crucifixion, and for about a whole half hour not long before his death in
Christ our Lord his sanctified body emitted the light of God, a gift of the Holy Spirit
showing the presence of the Holy Spirit in this blessed saint of God. St. Andrew was the
first man in the New Testament to receive Christ as Lord and confess Him as the Messiah.
If we deny holy tradition, we would not know or accept that the 12 apostles did anything,
nor would we know they died for Christ. We would demand that it be all written down in
the NT. When the NT itself doesn't demand of us or command us to only believe what is
written down in the NT!
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
the NT (whole Bible) is perfect and complete Scott.
SOLA SCRIPTURA.
that's right that it can't be understood without the Holy Spirit.
do you have The Holy Spirit?
please show me. in writing.
document anywhere that we have ANY authoritative traditions that have been handed
down ORALLY.
THE JEWS CLAIM THIS ABOUT THE TALMUD.
do you place these so-called oral traditions on par with canon?
Baptism, Lord's Supper, The Word.
what does OC say?[/quote]
Dear Zone, If you require documentation in writing, go to your local library, and get
an ILL. If you ask, for a small fee they will provide you with an ILL (Inter-library loan).
You can get the beginning volumes of the collected lives of the saints of the Church
compiled by Saint Dimitry of Rostov of Russia. See volume III, November, of "The Great
Collection of the Lives of the Saints" by Saint Dimitry of Rostov (1651-1709). See entry
under Saint Andrew for November 30. The other of the twelve apostles have a feast day
in the Orthodox Church. For more information see an Orthodox Church calendar. See es-
pecially "Old Orthodox Prayer Book: Second Edition. Copyright 2001, Archpriest Pimen
Simon, Russian Orthodox Church of the Nativity of Christ (Old Rite), Erie, PA, USA.
I would recommend you read W. Steuart McBirnie's book on the twelve apostles. All the
information we have about what the twelve apostles said and did comes down from oral
(spoken) traditions preserved only in the Orthodox Catholic Church? What is the Orthodox
Catholic Church? It is the pre-schism Christian Church as she existed from 30 AD to
1054 AD in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. When papal
Rome was still Orthodox Christian. Rome, too, inherited the correct traditions of the
twelve apostles of Christ; but later, Rome changed and fell away from the Orthodox Faith
"once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3), and began introducing some innovations and
heresies of her own. St. Andrew was martyred in the city of Patras, in Greece, under one
of the Roman emperors, and was tied on ropes to an X shaped cross. He died after
several days of crucifixion, and for about a whole half hour not long before his death in
Christ our Lord his sanctified body emitted the light of God, a gift of the Holy Spirit
showing the presence of the Holy Spirit in this blessed saint of God. St. Andrew was the
first man in the New Testament to receive Christ as Lord and confess Him as the Messiah.
If we deny holy tradition, we would not know or accept that the 12 apostles did anything,
nor would we know they died for Christ. We would demand that it be all written down in
the NT. When the NT itself doesn't demand of us or command us to only believe what is
written down in the NT!
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
S
For more about Saint Andrew's life, works, and teachings, Zone, see, please:
"The Astonishing Missionary Journeys of the Apostle Andrew", by Nun Nectaria (McLees),
Saint Anthony Greek Orthodox Church, Reno, NV at:
http:// saintanthonyreno.org
Take care.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
PS God bless you.
"The Astonishing Missionary Journeys of the Apostle Andrew", by Nun Nectaria (McLees),
Saint Anthony Greek Orthodox Church, Reno, NV at:
http:// saintanthonyreno.org
Take care.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
PS God bless you.
S
You are bringing up a false analogy. The Talmud is heretical Jewish propaganda against our dear and beloved LORD GOD and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Every time a Protestant minister who professes to go by Sola Scriptura preaches a sermon, he is speaking against the need for "Scripture alone". If he really believed in Scripture alone, he would merely read the Scriptures in the Church. He wouldn't comment upon them, or say what they mean. He would just read them aloud.
Not authoritative enough?
Are you saying that the Bible is not authoritative enough.
I thought you believed the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.
So, what will you say when you learn that the Bible itself speaks of oral traditions, and says these are to be kept?
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thess. 2:15 KJV
What were the traditions that the Thessalonians were taught? These traditions came in
word, and not in St. Paul's writings only. What were St. Paul's words to them? Scripture
does not say. Yet St. Paul commanded them to keep his words. Obviously, in the early
Church, the churches were founded by Jesus Christ through His twelve apostles and St.
Paul, St. Barnabas, St. Timothy, St. Titus, and the 70 disciples, and so on. The early
ministers (priests (presbyters)/elders) mentioned in the NT. It is Scripture itself that
proves the "Bible alone" approach of the Protestant Reformation to be faulty. No
Protestant actually practices sola Scriptura. It is the Bible plus German, French, Swiss,
Scottish, British traditions taught by Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and so on.
It's the 16th century nominalistic traditions of men, not the Apostolic Tradition received
from the 12 apostles, etc. in the Greek Orthodox Church.
In Erie Scott R. Harrington PS God bless you and give you peace with God. God bless
us all and give us peace with God through our LORD Jesus Christ. Amen.
Every time a Protestant minister who professes to go by Sola Scriptura preaches a sermon, he is speaking against the need for "Scripture alone". If he really believed in Scripture alone, he would merely read the Scriptures in the Church. He wouldn't comment upon them, or say what they mean. He would just read them aloud.
Not authoritative enough?
Are you saying that the Bible is not authoritative enough.
I thought you believed the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.
So, what will you say when you learn that the Bible itself speaks of oral traditions, and says these are to be kept?
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thess. 2:15 KJV
What were the traditions that the Thessalonians were taught? These traditions came in
word, and not in St. Paul's writings only. What were St. Paul's words to them? Scripture
does not say. Yet St. Paul commanded them to keep his words. Obviously, in the early
Church, the churches were founded by Jesus Christ through His twelve apostles and St.
Paul, St. Barnabas, St. Timothy, St. Titus, and the 70 disciples, and so on. The early
ministers (priests (presbyters)/elders) mentioned in the NT. It is Scripture itself that
proves the "Bible alone" approach of the Protestant Reformation to be faulty. No
Protestant actually practices sola Scriptura. It is the Bible plus German, French, Swiss,
Scottish, British traditions taught by Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and so on.
It's the 16th century nominalistic traditions of men, not the Apostolic Tradition received
from the 12 apostles, etc. in the Greek Orthodox Church.
In Erie Scott R. Harrington PS God bless you and give you peace with God. God bless
us all and give us peace with God through our LORD Jesus Christ. Amen.