Well, of course I am...to you. However, the teachings of Jesus Christ to his disciples - along with what had already been established in the Old Testament - was written down by those followers under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told them that he would send the Spirit and he would bring to their remembrance all those things that he had taught. To what end do you think he said that? So that those teachings would be handed down strictly verbally and never written in a form that could be copied and passed down? I don't think so. The Holy Bible we have today is what all "traditions" should be judged against. Jesus, it is said, DID many things that would take the whole world and forever to write down, but we can be confident - based upon the very words of Scripture - that what we have is what we need to base all doctrines of the faith upon.
It is interesting to study about traditions in the churches of the first few centuries after the Apostles were all gone and it is admirable that heretical leaders were disputed using the very words of Scripture, however, just because a Mideastern church thousands of years ago did X, it doesn't necessarily mean ALL churches must also do X to be considered Christian. Scripture is quite clear what is needed to become a Christian and those basic tenets of the faith are not nebulous concepts that require a PHD to decode. They are simple and straightforward and are the starting point of the Christian life setting the stage for future growth and maturity of the faith. Yes, teachers and pastors and leaders are all good and contribute to that spiritual growth as well as evangelists that go out into the world preaching the Gospel and bringing people into the fellowship, but it is by the leading of God through the Holy Spirit that that each heart gets touched and convicted of sin and the need of the Savior. The "church" does not save anyone. Jesus does and those who are saved become members of the body of Christ, his church.
Well, of course I am...to you.
It's not about me. I meant to say that Scripture was chosen as a matter of Tradition, not vice versa.
However, the teachings of Jesus Christ to his disciples - along with what had already been established in the Old Testament - was written down by those followers under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
And changed and modified and some of which was written a century or more after His Ascension. Why was John not written until 90 or so AD? What of the Comma Johanneum? What about the other changes that were made to the texts?
Jesus told them that he would send the Spirit and he would bring to their remembrance all those things that he had taught. To what end do you think he said that? So that those teachings would be handed down strictly verbally and never written in a form that could be copied and passed down? I don't think so.
Then why did they wait so long to write the Gospels? And if they remembered correctly, why does John think that the Crucifixion happen the day before Pentecost and Mark, the day after? All four Gospels have different signs about the head of Christ on the Cross and all four have different versions about Resurrection Day.
The Holy Bible we have today is what all "traditions" should be judged against. Jesus, it is said, DID many things that would take the whole world and forever to write down, but we can be confident - based upon the very words of Scripture - that what we have is what we need to base all doctrines of the faith upon.
Paul doesn't say that and neither does anyone else in the Bible. In fact, Paul is quite insistent that the teachings (Tradition) of the Church are to be followed expressly.
It is interesting to study about traditions in the churches of the first few centuries after the Apostles were all gone and it is admirable that heretical leaders were disputed using the very words of Scripture, however, just because a Mideastern church thousands of years ago did X, it doesn't necessarily mean ALL churches must also do X to be considered Christian.
That is one of the purposes of Nicea and the Nicene Creed. The Creed lays out what a Christian is supposed to believe. The Athenasian Creed, although never ratified in an ecumenical Coucil, is even more exact.
The "church" does not save anyone. Jesus does and those who are saved become members of the body of Christ, his church.
Let us not forget the Traditions of the Church and the Great Commission. The Church is supposed to teach. Let's put it this way - does straying from the teachings of the Church to the extent of, say, Mormonism make one be non Christian?
John 21: 15 8 9 10 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Did Jesus say this to anyone else?