Therein lies your problem. You ignore sacred tradition: John 21: 25
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written.”
Even before the Bible was offered as the written word of God, there was a tradition of devotion and intercession through Mary.
We have Iscool here saying on one hand thatnterpretation does not matter, and then spouting Biblical quotes to supply us “his” understanding of scripture. This is what David Koresh and Jim Jones, and the Moonies do as well.
In fact, as Christians, we are supposed to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state that Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)?
St. Paul must have “heard†this saying, not read it from the Gospel or “Scrpture,†thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.
Did the early Christians have the Bible as we know it? No.
The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus I). So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written “Word of God” to follow His teachings? Well, naturally, they were the Body of Christ and were taught through “oral†teachings by the Church, not by writings.
No one can hold a candle to the Himalayan reaches of Catholic theologians. This is why we have several pre-eminent Lutheran and Protestant theologians convert to Catholicism after a lifetime of scholarship and teaching.
This is why today to identify one self as a Christian who is not a Catholic is an embarrassment in informed circles.
An embarrassment, you say?
Have you read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3357056/posts
What about this embarrassment:
“Rejoice, Thou that didst adopt us at the Cross of Thy Son! Rejoice, Thou that didst unite God with mankind!”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3357454/posts
Even before the Bible was offered as the written word of God, there was a tradition of devotion and intercession through Mary.
That verse in no way says what was presented written was incomplete. Actually a difficulty for your argument as the same John said:
John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
I take it you mean they're high. That does help explain how they get to their significant doctrinal error.
Thanks for the clarification.
If you were a doctor you'd be a quack...HaHaHa...
Fail! What you reason is pure conjecture. Besides, Paul discredits this idea.
Galatians 1:11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
How could Paul know what Jesus said? Gee, I wonder...
Could have, should have, maybe.
Pure speculation.
So, even presuming that maybe Paul did, prove to us that what Rome teaches today came from Paul, that it was passed down faithfully without corruption of any kind.
Proof please.
Hoss