[hopefulpilgrim]

So obvious that they were ignored for a thousand years?

Who says they were ignored??? And if they were, it might be because the RCC kept them in the dark as to what the scriptures actually taught. Once the scriptures were more widely distributed, I'm sure the inconsistencies were NOT ignored.

Also, as Nobdysfool pointed out, "Those supposed [catholic] 'doctrines' were not codified until quite some time after the Apostles." So, how could wise believers possibly object to traditions the first thousand years which were not even being taught yet?
-- Hopefulpilgrim

[RobbyS]

And if they were, it might be because the RCC kept them in the dark as to what the scriptures actually taught. No, the RCC--and the Greeks- do not agree with what Luther taught, just as they did not agree with what Arius taught. Let us not forget that the battles between the Catholics and the Arians was basically a dispute over the meaning of Scripture. You assume--falsely-- that the Churchmen of the 4th Century were ignorant of Scripture. Yet men like Ambrose were steeped in it.(We need not mention Jerome) Yet he accepted doctrines that you reject but were already Catholic doctrine a thousand years before Luther. Why should I accept Luther's (or your) interpretations rather than his?