Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.J.Crockett said:

---

1 CORINTHIANS, Chapter 2

---

Yep Paul is writing to the Church, about apostolic transmission of the mind of God. The interpreter is the Spirit bearing community, i.e., the Church. That's why 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church "the pillar and ground (or bulwark) of the truth".

---

the true church is people filled with the Holy Spirit. Everybody else is a wolf in sheeps clothing

---

So who are these Spirit-filled people? How do you identify them? How do you know you're one of them and not the wolf?

Christians that have opposing dogma, those that deny the divinity of Christ and those that contradict each other all claim to have the Holy Spirit. Am I to believe the Holy Spirit sews confusion? How does an invisible, unidentifiable community function as a pillar and ground of truth in the world?

You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide. The Spirit was promised to lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13)

You have two choices. Either believe yourself to be an individual pope or you can believe Christ established a visible Church aka Orthodoxy.

---

you will know them by thier fruit..

The Holy Spirit guides me and I test my thoughts and my actions against scripture.

A Sprit lead church has apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers along with elders and deacons

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

Who is chosing the readings, the teaching, the revelation, the prayer in tongues and the interpretation? Most churches, the pastor is doing all of this (or your church doesnt do it) while the body sits and listens.

After church, so many Christians of all denominations go about their worldly ways. My neighbor is Catholic, he serves at his church. He takes communion. He lies, he cusses, he is prideful, he is a worldly sinner.

I have another close friend who also is Catholic, and serves at his church. In the world, he acts like a good Christian.

Same with my protestant friends. It's easy to see by how they act outside of church whether they have the true spirit or not.. the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

These are not things to work on, they are naturally appearing. Christ is the root, you are the branch. Rooted in Christ, the good fruit grows. Without God,you can do nothing.

4th and Inches said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.J.Crockett said:

---

1 CORINTHIANS, Chapter 2

---

Yep Paul is writing to the Church, about apostolic transmission of the mind of God. The interpreter is the Spirit bearing community, i.e., the Church. That's why 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church "the pillar and ground (or bulwark) of the truth".

---

the true church is people filled with the Holy Spirit. Everybody else is a wolf in sheeps clothing

---

So who are these Spirit-filled people? How do you identify them? How do you know you're one of them and not the wolf?

Christians that have opposing dogma, those that deny the divinity of Christ and those that contradict each other all claim to have the Holy Spirit. Am I to believe the Holy Spirit sews confusion? How does an invisible, unidentifiable community function as a pillar and ground of truth in the world?

You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide. The Spirit was promised to lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13)

You have two choices. Either believe yourself to be an individual pope or you can believe Christ established a visible Church aka Orthodoxy.

---

you will know them by thier fruit..

The Holy Spirit guides me and I test my thoughts and my actions against scripture.

A Sprit lead church has apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers along with elders and deacons

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

Who is chosing the readings, the teaching, the revelation, the prayer in tongues and the interpretation? Most churches, the pastor is doing all of this (or your church doesnt do it) while the body sits and listens.

After church, so many Christians of all denominations go about their worldly ways. My neighbor is Catholic, he serves at his church. He takes communion. He lies, he cusses, he is prideful, he is a worldly sinner.

I have another close friend who also is Catholic, and serves at his church. In the world, he acts like a good Christian.

Same with my protestant friends. It's easy to see by how they act outside of church whether they have the true spirit or not.. the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

These are not things to work on, they are naturally appearing. Christ is the root, you are the branch. Rooted in Christ, the good fruit grows. Without God,you can do nothing.

---

The Donatists tried your same argument and Augustine destroyed it. The holiness of individual members can't be the mark of the true Church. Mormons claim the same thing and show it...but we both know they're not Christians. You've described a church identified by invisible fruit, led by personal spirit guidance, validated by private Scripture reading. You've also said the Holy Spirit leads Christians...yet Christians "filled with the Holy Spirit" hold contradictory doctrines. You've given me no external criterion that isn't ultimately reducible to your own judgment.

Facts:

The Church existed for decades before a single Gospel was written down, and for centuries before the New Testament canon was officially closed.

How was the faith preserved? It was preserved through oral transmission, communal memory, and liturgy. This isn't contested. Its factual. Even most protestant scholars agree.

The New Testament Scriptures are the written expression of that already existing liturgical life, not a manual used to construct it later. When the Apostles went out, they didn't hand people a leather bound Bible to a population that almost entirely couldn't read for the next 1800 years. They established communities that prayed a specific way, baptized a specific way, and broke bread a specific way.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are ya'll aware that the word of God isn't just scripture?

The Word of God is primarily a Person, not a text. The Logos is the Second Person of the Trinity. Scripture bears witness to Him, it's a letter about the Word, not the Word itself in the most proper sense.

Oral tradition preceded and accompanied written Scripture throughout salvation history. From Adam to Moses there was no written revelation, yet no one considers that period devoid of God's word. The prophets preached far more than was ever written down, Obadiah's 21 verses hardly represent his entire ministry.

The apostles didn't establish a canon. If sola scriptura were foundational to the Gospel, Christ and the apostles would have prioritized assembling one. Instead it took centuries of councils and debate, meaning the early church operated without sola scriptura by definition.

Paul explicitly calls his oral preaching the word of God. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is direct, the Thessalonians received his spoken teaching "not as the word of men but as the word of God."

The canon itself is a product of Tradition. Even evangelical scholars like FF Bruce and Lee McDonald concede that apostolic tradition and church authority were absolutely necessary for determining which books belong. A fallible process can't reliably produce an infallible list.

The lectionary and liturgical context produced the canon, not academic textual scholarship, and not a self authenticating biblical text.

---

You: "A fallible process can't reliably produce an infallible list."

Of course it can. This is exactly how God has been able to achieve his infallible will through fallible man ever since the fall. It's how the Jews were able to recognize their infallible canon of Scripture, despite obviously being fallible themselves.

No one doubts that oral tradition is how it started. But for us today, we don't have the original apostles with us, we only have the written record of their oral tradition, as well as their written letters. The simple fact is this: everything the church has today in its possession that we know came from the apostles is in Scripture, and nowhere else.

**Do the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have ANYTHING in their possession that we know came from the apostles through a continuous, unbroken chain of witness, that is NOT in Scripture? If so, what is it?

---

Paul explicitly tells the Tessalonians to hold to traditions delivered by word or by epistle (2 Thess 2:15). He tells Timothy that the things he heard orally in the presence of many witnesses are to be committed to faithful men after him (2 Tim 2:2). Paul himself says he taught in Ephesus for three years day and night: do you seriously believe every word of that three year teaching is containing in his epistles? The text itself even tells you it isn't.

The Jews had no settled, universally agreed canon in the 1st century. There were competing canons, debates over books like Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs well into the 2nd century. So the example you chose...actually demonstrates that the canonization required an authoritative community process, not individual fallible recognition producing a clean infallible result.

---

Paul tells them to hold to THEIR traditions, meaning the apostles'. Not to any oral tradition created by the church.

No, not everything Paul ever uttered is likely to be contained in Scripture - but what's in Scripture is what the Holy Spirit decided to preserve. If you have his other teachings, then by all means, do share them. But you don't. No one does.

There is no evidence that the Hebrew canon wasn't closed. There was debate over whether books like Esther should remain in their canon, but the decision was always to keep it in. In other words, there were challenges to the canon, but the canon stayed the same. And ultimately, Jesus himself verified that their canon (the Tanakh) was correct.

No, canonization did not necessarily require an "authoritative community process". In the first century of the church, the vast majority of the New Testament was already collectively recognized as canon Scripture, not by any authoritative office's decree, but rather by the unified mindset of the Holy Spirit-led people of God, aka his church. No one is saying it is individually determined.

God has ALWAYS used fallible man to achieve his infallible will. That's how he demonstrates his sovereignty. The canon of Scripture is no exception.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are ya'll aware that the word of God isn't just scripture?

The Word of God is primarily a Person, not a text. The Logos is the Second Person of the Trinity. Scripture bears witness to Him, it's a letter about the Word, not the Word itself in the most proper sense.

Oral tradition preceded and accompanied written Scripture throughout salvation history. From Adam to Moses there was no written revelation, yet no one considers that period devoid of God's word. The prophets preached far more than was ever written down, Obadiah's 21 verses hardly represent his entire ministry.

The apostles didn't establish a canon. If sola scriptura were foundational to the Gospel, Christ and the apostles would have prioritized assembling one. Instead it took centuries of councils and debate, meaning the early church operated without sola scriptura by definition.

Paul explicitly calls his oral preaching the word of God. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is direct, the Thessalonians received his spoken teaching "not as the word of men but as the word of God."

The canon itself is a product of Tradition. Even evangelical scholars like FF Bruce and Lee McDonald concede that apostolic tradition and church authority were absolutely necessary for determining which books belong. A fallible process can't reliably produce an infallible list.

The lectionary and liturgical context produced the canon, not academic textual scholarship, and not a self authenticating biblical text.

---

You: "A fallible process can't reliably produce an infallible list."

Of course it can. This is exactly how God has been able to achieve his infallible will through fallible man ever since the fall. It's how the Jews were able to recognize their infallible canon of Scripture, despite obviously being fallible themselves.

No one doubts that oral tradition is how it started. But for us today, we don't have the original apostles with us, we only have the written record of their oral tradition, as well as their written letters. The simple fact is this: everything the church has today in its possession that we know came from the apostles is in Scripture, and nowhere else.

**Do the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have ANYTHING in their possession that we know came from the apostles through a continuous, unbroken chain of witness, that is NOT in Scripture? If so, what is it?

---

Yes the Church possess several things traceable to apostolic origin that aren't in Scripture.

1.) The Liturgy: The eucharistic liturgical structure, the shape of Christian worship, predates any canonical New Testament document and is attested continuously from the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Ignatius forward. Paul references an already established eucharistic tradition in 1 Cor 11:23 using technical transmission language parelabon/paredoka: recieved/delivered. The same language used for oral tradition.

2.) Baptismal practice/formula: The trinitarian baptismal formula and its theological freight is transmitted liturgically and catechetically, not exhaustively defined in the text alone.

The irony of your position is that you asked what the Church has that came from the apostles outside of Scripture...but the table of contents you're using to define Scripture is itself not in Scripture. The canon is an apostolic tradition transmitted through the Church. You received it from people you identify as pagan idol worshippers.

Here's an easy one. The tile "The Book of Matthew" is not found anywhere in the text itself. So how do you know it's Matthew's book? Answer 'Apostolic Tradition'.

---

The Liturgy - sorry, this is obviously untrue, as your liturgy credits Mary for your salvation. I don't see how any rational person can even come CLOSE to arguing that the original apostles taught this. In fact, as I've been repeatedly saying, if one doesn't recognize this as egregious heresy and idolatry, it is highly likely that you aren't a Christian at all.

- Trinitarian Baptismal formula - STRAIGHT out of Scripture - "... baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

- The canon of Scripture is NOT an apostolic tradition. No apostle taught which books were to be canon. You made this same claim before. You are repeating your mistakes.

- the book of Matthew: there is no apostolic tradition that Matthew wrote this book. That tradition comes from the unbroken chain of witness of the people of God, aka his church, starting from those who were first hand witnesses and therefore could attest to its authorship.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are ya'll aware that the word of God isn't just scripture?

The Word of God is primarily a Person, not a text. The Logos is the Second Person of the Trinity. Scripture bears witness to Him, it's a letter about the Word, not the Word itself in the most proper sense.

Oral tradition preceded and accompanied written Scripture throughout salvation history. From Adam to Moses there was no written revelation, yet no one considers that period devoid of God's word. The prophets preached far more than was ever written down, Obadiah's 21 verses hardly represent his entire ministry.

The apostles didn't establish a canon. If sola scriptura were foundational to the Gospel, Christ and the apostles would have prioritized assembling one. Instead it took centuries of councils and debate, meaning the early church operated without sola scriptura by definition.

Paul explicitly calls his oral preaching the word of God. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is direct, the Thessalonians received his spoken teaching "not as the word of men but as the word of God."

The canon itself is a product of Tradition. Even evangelical scholars like FF Bruce and Lee McDonald concede that apostolic tradition and church authority were absolutely necessary for determining which books belong. A fallible process can't reliably produce an infallible list.

The lectionary and liturgical context produced the canon, not academic textual scholarship, and not a self authenticating biblical text.

---

You: "A fallible process can't reliably produce an infallible list."

Of course it can. This is exactly how God has been able to achieve his infallible will through fallible man ever since the fall. It's how the Jews were able to recognize their infallible canon of Scripture, despite obviously being fallible themselves.

No one doubts that oral tradition is how it started. But for us today, we don't have the original apostles with us, we only have the written record of their oral tradition, as well as their written letters. The simple fact is this: everything the church has today in its possession that we know came from the apostles is in Scripture, and nowhere else.

**Do the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have ANYTHING in their possession that we know came from the apostles through a continuous, unbroken chain of witness, that is NOT in Scripture? If so, what is it?

---

Yes the Church possess several things traceable to apostolic origin that aren't in Scripture.

1.) The Liturgy: The eucharistic liturgical structure, the shape of Christian worship, predates any canonical New Testament document and is attested continuously from the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Ignatius forward. Paul references an already established eucharistic tradition in 1 Cor 11:23 using technical transmission language parelabon/paredoka: recieved/delivered. The same language used for oral tradition.

2.) Baptismal practice/formula: The trinitarian baptismal formula and its theological freight is transmitted liturgically and catechetically, not exhaustively defined in the text alone.

The irony of your position is that you asked what the Church has that came from the apostles outside of Scripture...but the table of contents you're using to define Scripture is itself not in Scripture. The canon is an apostolic tradition transmitted through the Church. You received it from people you identify as pagan idol worshippers.

Here's an easy one. The tile "The Book of Matthew" is not found anywhere in the text itself. So how do you know it's Matthew's book? Answer 'Apostolic Tradition'.

---

The Liturgy - sorry, this is obviously untrue, as your liturgy credits Mary for your salvation. I don't see how any rational person can even come CLOSE to arguing that the original apostles taught this. In fact, as I've been repeatedly saying, if one doesn't recognize this as egregious heresy and idolatry, it is highly likely that you aren't a Christian at all.

- Trinitarian Baptismal formula - STRAIGHT out of Scripture - "... baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

- The canon of Scripture is NOT an apostolic tradition. No apostle taught which books were to be canon. You made this same claim before. You are repeating your mistakes.

- the book of Matthew: there is no apostolic tradition that Matthew wrote this book. That tradition comes from the unbroken chain of witness of the people of God, aka his church, starting from those who were first hand witnesses and therefore could attest to its authorship.

---

Stop throwing a temper tantrum. This is why we I don't want to argue with you anymore because you resort to childish bull **** and claims like we worship Mary.

Our liturgy credits Christ for salvation consistently, repeatedly, liturgy-wide. The Theotokos is asked to intercede to her Son. The entire point of calling her Theotokos is a Christological affirmation, she bore God incarnate. So this idea that you think we believe she's God or can save us is re tar ded . Nobody believes that. This is you making a strawman to encourage others to hate us.

Boy do you hate us. You wont even tell us what denomination you are. Coward.

You made a specific factual claim about Orthodox worship, got it wrong, and then told me I'm probably not a Christian. Good luck changing minds like that.

Blocked.

.

So, clearly I was not throwing a "temper tantrum". It's obvious that was pure projection.

It's also clear that the Ortho bros can not deal with the serious Scriptural, historical, and logical issues presented to them that put the Orthodox Church's views in a quandary; so instead of facing them, they've decided to resort to denial and block me, as if that somehow solves their troubling issues.

This isn't about "hate" against Orthodox Christians. It is, however, about hate against their church's false teachings. The repeated claim of Orthodoxy is that their liturgy is apostolic - but does any rational, intelligent Christian truly believe that the apostolic churches in Acts were singing hymns to Mary that credit her for salvation and bowing and praying to images of saints? All while in elaborate costumes and in shiny, golden rooms with images of saints everywhere, singing "Anathema! Anathema!" against those outside their church? The Orthodox liturgy is considered infallible canon. I've posted this before, but it bears repeating here. This is what they say of Mary in what they consider to be apostolic and infalllible liturgy:

• SHE is the propitiation of the whole world.
• SHE is the restoration of men.
• SHE is the forgiveness for many who have stumbled.
• Through HER our sin is remitted.
• SHE is the ship of all who would be saved.
• SHE is the gate of salvation.
• SHE is the provider of God's mercy.
• Through HER is given new birth to those conceived in shame.
• SHE is the beginning of the new and spiritual creation.
• SHE joins in union the faithful to the Lord.
• SHE takes away the filth of sin.
• SHE is the acceptable sacrifice
• SHE is the salvation of my soul.

Folks, remember, ^^^THIS is what the Orthodox Church believes to be the faith of the apostles and the first churches. THIS is what Doc gets so defensive about when I bring it up. He calls it "hate" to call this for what it clearly is. This is what the Orthos defend with everything they have, mostly because they HAVE TO, otherwise their church's authority claims fail. This shows they are not of the truth, that they'd rather sacrifice truth for their tribe. I think it's clear to any true Christian what the spirit behind the Orthodox church, as well as Roman Catholicism which shares its many errors, really is.

Mary was a good woman to be honored in Christ for her blessing of baring the Son of God, but I agree that Catholics take things way too far with her. It seems like worship to me. We are only to pray to God Himself. We are only to worship God Himself. She cannot help us against the attacks of the devil, only the Lord can..