[SoothingDave]

Bass, I would like to address the flack you have been geting lately about your idea of Sola Scriptura. Not all of it has been fair. You must realize that in no way are you as "hardcore" as some of our other participants. Like you said, not all Protestant are afraid of philosophy. I think many are missing the point you are making, that we can use our minds and other historical sources and other types of thought to create our theology. But that none of the influence from non-Scriptural sources can be allowed to contradict Scripture.

Others will say that no outside influence can be used, but this is delusional, as there are always outside influences in how we think.

In this regard your denying "Scripture only" makes sense. Yes, you can use other ideas.

In the sense in which we Catholics regard the term, there is no difference between you and the others. You still use Scripture as your final (or primary) authority. So while it may not be the "only" authority in your thought, Scripture remains the only final authority. Hence the term Sola Scriptura still seems to fit.

I issued the 10 million dollar challenge on the previous thread. Quote a bit of the oral tradition of the early church (1st century would be nice).

How about "He is risen"? That would seem to be oral tradition in the first century. There certainly wasn't a lot written then and a lot of people couldn't read anyway. but the oral tradition of Jesus rising from the dead sure spread around.

Please deposit the funds in a Swiss account. I'll freepmail you the number. :-)

(Or wold you like to re-define the question?)

SD

[the808bass]

Or wold you like to re-define the question?

Yeah, fair enough. I was looking for Oral Tradition which was not contained in the Scripture. Oral Tradition separate from the written tradition which we now have. I should have clarified that.