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.
link to a list of traditions that are not in scripture, have been handed down orally from the first apostles.
can i read them? or are they in mystical rituals? i don't get it.
resource something i can find online that will spell out what these traditions are....who knows: maybe i will believe it.