Yesterday or the day before, I explained that Catholics don't follow "oral tradition" passed down for thousands of years! "Oral" Apostolic tradition, as I have explained it, is just a teaching that didn't get placed into 1 Corinthians. This doesn't mean that it wasn't written in the Didache, which was written only a few years later. The point is the source of these teachings are both Apostolic - whether Scripture or Apostolic Tradition.
You have yet to point out to me where the SCRIPTURES say we are to drop all oral traditions taught by Apostles. Why are you following an extra-Biblical - NO - ANTI-BIBLICAL teaching? And you give Catholics a hard time because "Mary is sinless" is not written in your concordances?
I don't know what the extra-Biblical teachings of the Apostles really were. All I have is the say so of interested, extra-Biblical, fallible men.
Yes, the same ones who saw Jesus risen from the dead, who wrote the Scriptures, and who taught the next generation of Christians. It appears that the second generation of Christians completely flubbed the teachings of the Bible - since we know that the Apostles consulted the Bible first when they taught. Sorry for the sarcasm, but we just seem to be going round and round with the same lines. You refuse to see that the same Christians who lovingly protected the Scriptures and vouched for their authorship are the same ones who vouched for and wrote down the Apostles "other" teachings such as infant baptism. I find this lack of logic frustrating, I suppose. It appears that you believe that they are ONLY trustworthy when when protecting the written teachings - as if the other teachings were not worthy to be continued.
I don't see how oral tradition could be passed down flawlessly over this many years.
See above. They were WRITTEN, just not in the letters of the Apostles...
I don't think you could under the conditions of the original "authors"
Meaning what? Let's just switch gears. Tell me how you know that Esther is part of the Word of God. And don't tell me because it is bound with the rest of the books in the Bible! If you found the Esther scroll, aware of its existence along with many other writings, how would you decide that it belonged?
My point is that INTERNAL EVIDENCE is insufficient to determine the canon of Scripture. Thus, the Bible is NOT self-attesting.
You could parrot what the Bible already teaches
Anyone could, and do it in 50 AD. Many DID do it.
I have never argued that external evidence is useless
No, you said it wasn't needed. I say this is ridiculous, it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to determine that THIS is what God is - not a duality, a ying and yang, not a non-personal God like Allah, not many gods, not "no" god, not the Gnostic vision of levels of dieties, not a Jesus with one nature, divine, in a "man" suit. You are totally lost as to WHAT is truth by relying only on the hundreds and hundreds of writings available that discuss the attributes of God. The Bible is one book among many, actually, 73 books among many. Without the reference of the Apostlolic Church, you wouldn't know if the Nicean Creed was orthodox, or heterodox - while the Gnostics were REALLY correct and Jesus was married and had a kid...You would have no clue whatsoever without outside witness and evidence that the Bible is THE teachings from God - the others are imitations.
The Bible speaks for itself.
So what does it say about Esther belonging within its bindings?
Well, that's why we take second, third, and tenth glances. It all still fits
That's special pleading. How are you going to convince a non-Christian that Psalm 58 is in synch with the rest of the concept of a loving God? And can't a Mormon say the very same thing? "It all still fits"? Or the Muslims? "No, you have to read it in Arabic". "No, the original Arabic". Come on.
"...because I know God would not be behind it.(a fake Scripture)
In all seriousness, I ask you "how?" And don't bother with the "Spirit will tell me". The Mormons say that EXACT same thing... And those naive people are wrong.
I don't think it is fair to compare one passage from the OT to one from the NT and then say they are incompatible without the guidance of the Church
Now we are getting somewhere! Not only "I don't think it is fair", but "I don't think it is POSSIBLE"!
Regards
It's not my job to convince, it is my job to present.
As for the rest of this particular post, you either already know how I would answer or you specifically asked me not to answer how I would. :)