Replies

“Perhaps when Paul met with the elders of Ephesus he should have emphasized the priests should have met with him as well to give them instructions on how to properly handle and store remaining consecrated bread. Considering early Christians were meeting in homes, open air and by rivers this could pose quite a problem.

Or perhaps in 13 epistles Paul could have mentioned how only priests should break the bread or only apostles or those ordained. No not found there either. Perhaps the bishop of Rome, Peter when writing from Babylon should have instructed all on who and how the Eucharist is to be handled. That seems to be absent as well as in John’s epistles, Jude and even James. It seems the apostles missed the establishment of priests, the mass, the changing of the elements. All not there other than bread and breaking and doing so in remembrance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.”

Hmmm, very short and to the point answer:

Lots of things absent in the NT epistles, they are not that long. My answer stands. And perhaps St. Paul new what he
told the Church and new what the other Apostles told the Church and he new the starting with Clement of Rome, the Didache, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp and St. Ireneaus, all writing between 80-90AD and 185AD, that orthodox Apostolic Tradition would be preserved [just as it is recorded in those letters] and none of them had any idea that Protestantism in its various stripes would erupt from the 16th century onward hence they had no need to address your points noted above.

Lots of things absent in the NT epistles, they are not that long. My answer stands. And perhaps St. Paul new what he told the Church and new what the other Apostles told the Church and he new the starting with Clement of Rome, the Didache, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp and St. Ireneaus, all writing between 80-90AD and 185AD, that orthodox Apostolic Tradition would be preserved [just as it is recorded in those letters] and none of them had any idea that Protestantism in its various stripes would erupt from the 16th century onward hence they had no need to address your points noted above.

Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?

How do you know?

How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?

How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?

What is your source for verifying all of the above?

Please provide the sources for verification purposes.

Based on your statement, we are to believe that the holy scriptures, “are not” able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

And then conclude the scriptures “are not fully” profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So therefore Paul said one thing in writing and yet another by tradition?

I am of the mind that God is not in the confusion business.