Replies

I say it is oral tradition that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Well that might be the substance of the tradition but one would expect something a bit formulaic to convey doctrine and nicely done in Greek. I'm looking for the exact tradition. :) I know y'all have preserved it so well. But it's hiding :) j/k

Seriously, bass, where did this notion of Jesus speaking Aramaic come from? Obviously it's not written in the Bible according to Havoc. And we know that there is no history acceptable to Havoc which states this. So it must be an oral tradition that was passed on, or else how would I know this?

I guess Peter being crucified upside down in Rome is a similar oral tradition, untestified to in any reputable (according to Havoc) history, yet the belief persists.

Can you address the logical disconnect between holding a book as the foundation of truth, when that very same book call something else the foundation of truth?

Well, no one asked me 8^( but I would argue that the "truth" which Paul is referring to here is the Word of God (Jesus' words to the Father: "THY WORD IS TRUTH."), or the Gospel ( Paul's words: " ...the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation..." Eph 1:13 and Col. 1:5). The church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" because it has been entrusted with the Word of God and exists to uphold it and hold it up!

So, the scriptures are not the pillar and foundation of truth; they represent Truth itself. The Church is the pillar and foundation which uphold the scriptures. WHAT AN AWESOME RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE WE HAVE !

Thank you. Not only did you understand the question, you seem to have answered it in a reasonable fashion. You must be new here. ;-)