[metmom]

I don’t accept tradition, no matter how it’s packaged.

It’s not up to me to prove that it’s from the apostles and has been passed down faithfully because I’m not making the claim that it has.

So why would I have to prove where the tradition is from and that it has allegedly been passed down faithfully?

[LurkingSince'98]

I don’t accept tradition, no matter how it’s packaged.

You did at one time - now you don’t .

Its amazing how you get to pick and chose.

AMDG

[verga]

Posts 68 and 72 that you are ignoring:A related question would be, "Just what were the books Paul was referring to as Scripture in, for instance, 2 Tim 3:6"? So I go on to ask:

How do you know?

How do you know they’re from the apostles?

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.

I'm interested, metmom.

So then according to you, you refuse to accept the Bible since those books were handed down by tradition. Your words:I don’t accept tradition, no matter how it’s packaged.

The books of the OT were handed down by tradition until the Canon was set. Now Catholics believe in the Alexandrian Canon, ordered several hundred years BC. Prots believe in the Palestinian canon ordered in 90 AD. Following the Palestinian canon gives several problems. This is the canon that denied Jesus. Second by what authority was it ordered?

So while you are going off on your tangents the questions still remain (See above in Italics.)