Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: mtg

“Oral tradition is not a pretense for Church doctrine. This is very clear when one reads the many of writings of early Church Fathers...”

I can agree that there is value in tradition that occurred up until about 100ad. If it wasn’t practiced by then, written about by then, etc., the it is suspect. In any case it isn’t inspired and authoritative. If it appeared hundreds of years later, it is bogus.


18 posted on 04/06/2013 3:57:48 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: aMorePerfectUnion
I can agree that there is value in tradition that occurred up until about 100ad. If it wasn’t practiced by then, written about by then, etc., the it is suspect. In any case it isn’t inspired and authoritative.

So you're saying that anything anybody did or said after 100 AD is not, in any way, inspired or authoritative. I will have to disagree completely with you on that. I'm sure you are making the same old argument that - if it's not in the Bible, then it's not true or valid.

But that just takes us back to your original argument.

20 posted on 04/06/2013 9:33:11 PM PDT by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson