More idiocy. I explained that generation in the context (as in generation to generation) that I wrote it meant that a whole new generation had been born and that the Church realized that things had better be written down for future posterity since Christ had not come back and might not for some time.
I had expected better of you.
I can't believe this "conversation" has been ongoing since the beginning of the week. Just for grins, I went back to where the subject of generations and Scripture was first raised. It was here:
To: CynicalBear
>>Paul was sent to teach and preach with the authority of God. The others did not have the authority to teach anything else other than what the Church taught.<<
Huh??? You mean the other Apostles had no authority directly from Jesus? Even Peter? >>2 Thessalonians 2: 15Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.<<
The others are the ones to whom Paul addressed his letters (from which I excerpted). Paul and the Apostles had the authority to teach and to quantify the Faith (as did those to whom they appointed as successors). Individual presbyters and deacons do not.
That’s right, and would be the reason I insist everything be proven in scripture unlike the RCC which “makes things up as they go along”.
Where does it say that Scripture is the only source of belief? NT Scripture did not even start getting written down until a generation after the Ascension of Jesus. What do you think that the Church relied on until the Canon of Scripture was approved? Flash cards?
649 posted on Monday, September 05, 2011 1:03:52 PM by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move m to do so.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what started the argument about how long a generation was. Can you possibly understand that your comment was interpreted to mean more than 20 years past before the Scriptures were first written? CB posted a table that showed the years of writing of each NT book, and he was further challenged. You have, in the past numerous times, expressed your beliefs that some books were not written until the second century, so I don't think you can blame anyone for reading your comment as more of the same. As of now, you can continue to assert whatever you want because I'm done talking about this nonissue.