Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Really? So you are telling me that the Jews had nothing, that the entire OT is a complete fabrication?

You are telling me that in the NT when a variety of books of the NT were already called as Holy Scripture, that those who penned those books, including the Apostles had no authority, and we all had to wait until a specific denomination came into existence a few centuries later?

---

No, TJ, that's not what she's saying (obviously).

No, she is not saying that the entire OT is a fabrication.
No, she is not saying that the Apostles had no authority.
No, she is not saying we all had to wait for a specific denomination.

You know what she's saying as do all of us reading this thread.

Keep in mind that when you post nonsense like this that you are exposing yourself as a person who has no regard for what others say, and that you attempt to twist what others say into whatever your position "du jour" happens to be at the moment.

Do you seriously believe that silly posts like this will win people to your side?

(That's rhetorical - no need to reply).

Lets talk about the oft stated fact there are more sacred writings in Christianity than the 66 Books of the KJV.

All these extra books can possibly do is add some history. They CANNOT change any doctrine or subtract anything.

If these extra books do NOT agree with the other 66 books, then they are FALSE.

Otherwise, you would have the Bible contradicting itself, and there are NO contradictions of substance in the Bible. (Contrary to what the Atheists love to say)

Therefore to say that Tradition, written or oral, can give us anything other than what is written in the Bible is false.

Gal,

Exactly!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Lets talk about the oft stated fact there are more sacred writings in Christianity than the 66 Books of the KJV.

---

Those writings were the accepted canon until the Protestant Reformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

No, TJ, that's not what she's saying (obviously).

No, she is not saying that the entire OT is a fabrication.
No, she is not saying that the Apostles had no authority.
No, she is not saying we all had to wait for a specific denomination.

You know what she's saying as do all of us reading this thread.

---

That is the problem. If someone says that the Bible was the creation of, and authenticated by an organization that started in the 4th century, then they are in effect denying that the Tanakh was Holy scripture and that the Apopstles did not have authority to declare what was and was not scripture - because they did. That is the only logical conclusion.

Quote:

---

Do you seriously believe that silly posts like this will win people to your side?

---

I really am not concerned whether you like it or not, and I am not out to win people to "my side". I am merely here presenting what scripture says. Some will like it, others won't. So be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Those writings were the accepted canon until the Protestant Reformation.

---

No they weren't. In fact one of the books made canonical within the Roman Catholic denomination at the Council of Trent even internal denies inspiration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

No they weren't. In fact one of the books made canonical within the Roman Catholic denomination at the Council of Trent even internal denies inspiration.

---

Yes, they were. They were the books accepted as the canon by the only Christian church in the Western Hemisphere until the Protestant Reformation.

The NT books were not written in the order in which we know them (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts... ). The Epistles were written first.

All the Canonical books were written within the life times of the Apostles. Otherwise there could be no recorded testimony of the eye witnesses to Jesus' ministry and resurrection.

Matthew: 37 AD
Mark: 57-63 AD
Luke: 58-63 AD
John: 90 AD
Acts: 63 AD
Romans: 58-60 AD
I Corinthians: 59 AD
II Corinthians: 60 AD
Galatians: 68 AD
Ephesians: 64 AD
Philippians: 64 AD
Colossians: 64 AD
I Thessalonians: 54 AD
II Thessalonians: 54-55 AD
I Timothy: 67 AD
II Timothy: 68 AD
Titus: 67 AD
Philemon: 64 AD
Hebrews: 68 AD
James: 45 AD
I Peter: 60 AD
II Peter: 61-65 AD
I John: 90 AD
II John: 90 AD
III John: 9) AD
Jude: 66 AD
Revelation: 96 AD

So you can see that Matthew wrote his gospel first, very shortly after the events.

Even Wikipedia disagrees with you --

"According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although this is often disputed. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later... Most secular scholars agree on the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e. those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65 and no later than 75. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95."

Wikipedia? Isn't that the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who has had something published?

The best scholorship assigns the dates I posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Wikipedia? Isn't that the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who has had something published?

The best scholorship assigns the dates I posted.

---

I said EVEN Wikipedia disagrees. Best scholarship from where?

***ADDED -- Mark was written before Matthew. That's a no-brainer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yes, they were. They were the books accepted as the canon by the only Christian church in the Western Hemisphere until the Protestant Reformation.

---

Believe as you wish, but I rather stand by what I know to be true. If indeed that were the case, there would have been no need for the Council of Trent to make a decision to add the non-canonical books to the canon of their denomination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Even Wikipedia disagrees with you --

"According to tradition,....

---

Note -even by the quote that you gave, they are not stating facts but Roman tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Note -even by the quote that you gave, they are not stating facts but Roman tradition.

---

Roman tradition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Roman tradition?

---

Roman Catholic denomination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Wikipedia? Isn't that the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone who has had something published?

The best scholorship assigns the dates I posted.

---

Would you share with us the names of those scholars that you have found advancing the dates you have provided? I would like very much to read their arguments for these dates since they lie well-outside those accepted by academic historians and Biblical scholars (be they Protestant, secular, Catholic, or other--I'm thinking of people like Joachim Jeremias, Kurt Aland, Marcus Barth, Geza Vermes, Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, W.H.C. Friend, Jaroslav Pelikan, Bentley Layton, Wayne Meeks, Eric Meyers, Bruce Metzger, E.P. Sanders, Oscar Cullmann, Henry Chadwick, Harold Attridge, John Meier... well, basically a who's who of NT scholarship). If you can provide bibliographical info without going to too much trouble that would, of course, be ideal. But if it would be a hassle to do so, it would be a big help even just to have their names.

(Ps. I mention the names for the benefit of anyone--I'm looking at you Wondergirl--who might be interested in having a look at some of the best scholarly work on the NT. Well, that and to give some idea why I am both interested in and incredulous about the scholarly work that backs up the dates provided by Galveston.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Note -even by the quote that you gave, they are not stating facts but Roman tradition.

---

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there is any Catholic Tradition regarding the dates given by the Wikipedia entry cited by Wondergirl. If anything, I suspect most Catholics would like the very early dates given by Galveston to turn out to be true. It is rather the received academic view that the books of the NT were, with only a couple of exceptions, written later than those dates.

Moreover, it is possible to appeal to or to recognize the authority of Tradition without being Roman Catholic or endorsing Roman Catholicism or Roman Catholic teachings. It would come as a great surprise to Coptic, Ethiopic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as to many Lutherans, Anglicans, and unaffiliated Christians to learn that by recognizing the authority of Tradition they are thereby making themselves Catholics. The question of the role and status of Tradition is quite separate from issues about the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there is any Catholic Tradition regarding the dates given by the Wikipedia entry cited by Wondergirl. If anything, I suspect most Catholics would like the very early dates given by Galveston to turn out to be true. It is rather the received academic view that the books of the NT were, with only a couple of exceptions, written later than those dates.

---

Good. Then wikipedia needs to clarify whose tradition they are referring to.

Quote:

---

Moreover, it is possible to appeal to or to recognize the authority of Tradition without being Roman Catholic or endorsing Roman Catholicism or Roman Catholic teachings. It would come as a great surprise to Coptic, Ethiopic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as to many Lutherans, Anglicans, and unaffiliated Christians to learn that by recognizing the authority of Tradition they are thereby making themselves Catholics.

---

Anyone can recognize it, but that does not make it any less a denominational tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Anyone can recognize it, but that does not make it any less a denominational tradition.

---

Even you hold to Tradition.

Wondergirl,

I'm curious... what traditions do you think he holds to? That was an interesting comment and I don't think I hold on to tradition.. give me an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there is any Catholic Tradition regarding the dates given by the Wikipedia entry cited by Wondergirl. If anything, I suspect most Catholics would like the very early dates given by Galveston to turn out to be true. It is rather the received academic view that the books of the NT were, with only a couple of exceptions, written later than those dates.

Moreover, it is possible to appeal to or to recognize the authority of Tradition without being Roman Catholic or endorsing Roman Catholicism or Roman Catholic teachings. It would come as a great surprise to Coptic, Ethiopic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as to many Lutherans, Anglicans, and unaffiliated Christians to learn that by recognizing the authority of Tradition they are thereby making themselves Catholics. The question of the role and status of Tradition is quite separate from issues about the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

---

All of which begs the question, if Holy Scripture didn't come about as history tells us, then where did they come from? Did they just drop out of the sky and fall on St. Jerome’s desk (or maybe it was Tom’s desk)?

JT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Even you hold to Tradition.

---

Actually, No. Not even close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

All of which begs the question, if Holy Scripture didn't come about as history tells us, then where did they come from? Did they just drop out of the sky and fall on St. Jerome’s desk (or maybe it was Tom’s desk)?

---

A couple of things - first, I am not sure that we agree on what history says, but I would hope that you would agree with me that secular history does tell us the full story especially in matters of a spiritual nature.

For example, we know that the OT was revealed to OT saints (primarily Jews) over a period of hundereds of years, and was locked down prior to the coming of Christ in the flesh. How then would Jerome (who, BTW opposed inclusion of the Apochrypha as part of the canon) have had anything to do with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Actually, No. Not even close.

---

Yes. One is Sola Scriptura.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yes. One is Sola Scriptura.

---

That is not a tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

That is not a tradition.

---

Of course it is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Of course it is!

---

Believe as you wish. If it were not Biblical, I would not believe it. Your saying otherwise does not change that reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

That is not a tradition.

---

From the online Merriam-Webster dictionary --

Main Entry: tra·di·tion
Pronunciation:
\trə-ˈdi-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tradicioun, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French tradicion, from Latin tradition-, traditio action of handing over, tradition — more at treason
Date: 14th century

1 a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions4: characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary --

Main Entry: tra·di·tion
Pronunciation:
\trə-ˈdi-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tradicioun, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French tradicion, from Latin tradition-, traditio action of handing over, tradition — more at treason
Date: 14th century

1 a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions4: characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

---

Exactly. My belief in Sola Scriptura comes from scripture. It is not a tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Exactly. My belief in Sola Scriptura comes from scripture. It is not a tradition.

---

The use of Sola Scriptura IS a tradition (born out of the Protestant Reformation) -- in fact, one of five such traditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

The use of Sola Scriptura IS a tradition (born out of the Protestant Reformation) -- in fact, one of five such traditions.

---

Actually, it goes back thousands of years earlier. I can trace it back well over 2,000 years. Maybe you are mistaking the rebirth of the recognition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as a major force within the church as being the start because you are not aware of the history or the Biblical basis.

Further, I am not a protestant, so though that may be your tradition, it is not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Actually, it goes back thousands of years earlier. I can trace it back well over 2,000 years. maybe you are mistaking the rebirth of the recognition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as a major force within the church as being the start because you are not aware of the history or the Biblical basis.

Further, I am not a protestant, so though that may be your tradition, it is not mine.

---

Oh, I thought you adhered to and taught Sola Scriptura. My mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Oh, I thought you adhered to and taught Sola Scriptura. My mistake.

---

I do indeed - but you appear to be unaware of where it comes from. That appears to be the source of your mistake.

I am "unaware." "My mistake." Ah.

If you adhere to and teach Sola Scriptura, you are bound by that tradition, no matter its source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I am "unaware." "My mistake." Ah.

If you adhere to and teach Sola Scriptura, you are bound by that tradition, no matter its source.

---

Heh heh, even after you acknowledge being wrong, you continue to falsely insist the others be labeled according to your false belief nonetheless.

No need to answer, but I wonder why you feel the need to demand that the world be labeled to a worldview that you believe in no matter what history, scripture or anyone else says.

It is not a tradition, but a Biblical doctrine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

It is not a tradition, but a Biblical doctrine.

---

Well, if it is you've manifestly failed to support that contention. 2Tim.3 didn't do it--although it does use the words "Scripture" and "complete" in rough proximity. Let's just remind ourselves what the verses to which you've appealed actually say: they say that Scripture is inspired and that it makes one wise for salvation. They also say that Scripture is "profitable" for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. These four things--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--are in turn said to make one "complete", "fully equipped" for doing good works. As has been pointed out, this is nothing with which anyone here has taken the least exception.

But this is not by any stretch an endorsement of the doctrine of sola scriptura. So far, then, you haven't justified your adherence to the doctrine all the while throwing barbs at others for failing to adhere to it. So what we have is, on the one hand, your own personal decision to be a sola-scripturist and, on the other hand, the decisions of others not to be sola-scripturists. You insist that sola scriptura is mandated by Scripture despite the fact that you have been unable to provide Scriptural evidence for this claim. At the same time, we have all seen that Scripture requires us to uphold and abide by oral teachings--and Scripture nowhere tells us that all of these teachings by which we are to abide, and which we are to uphold, are themselves contained in Scripture (in fact, they must not be if Scripture is itself telling us to abide by them). Now you chastise others for taking this at face value and so recognizing the authority of Tradition, all the while demanding adherence to a doctrine (sola scriptura) that is not found in Scripture.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is itself, as Wondergirl has pointed out, a tradition. Now I don't begrudge you adherence to that doctrine. You are, of course, free to believe as you wish, and this is as it should be. No one here is under the illusion that we are going to talk you out of it. You really ought, however, to recognize what is obvious to so many, to wit, that you have chosen to abide by this tradition and should therefore refrain from castigating others for themselves making the decision to abide by traditions other than that of sola scriptura. I say this less for your benefit--you have made it clear that you are less interested in what Scripture says about the matter than you are in doggedly promoting an ideology--than for the benefit of those who have found themselves brow-beaten by the demand, in the mouth of a sola-scripturist, that they must conform their beliefs in all matters spiritual to what sola-scripturists claim God requires of those who would serve him. If you, and others, choose to live your spiritual lives by the standard of sola scriptura I wish you all the best; but those of us who have read the Bible and studied the history of the Christian faith and have come to the informed judgment that sola scriptura is itself both textually and historically unsupported should not find our bona fides as Christians called into question.

It is perfectly fair to discuss and argue about which traditions ought to be accepted and which traditions ought to be rejected. But let's stop pretending that we aren't talking about competing traditions, that sola scriptura is not one tradition among others the merits of which ought to be discussed and evaluated. I don't for a moment mean to suggest that the absence of any explicit and unambiguous endorsement of sola scriptura by Scripture demonstrates its falsity. That is a further question. But it's one that ought to be entered into honestly, and that cannot be done so long as some insist on maintaining the pretense that their adherence to sola scriptura is not a tradition but is rather a sort of supine response to what Scripture says on its face. As we've seen, on its face Scripture not only doe not endorse sola scriptura, it explicitly and unambiguously affirms the authority of oral teachings. It is far from obvious that those who take this seriously, who, that is, think it important to honor the Scriptures by upholding and abiding by these oral teachings as they have been handed down, have done anything wrong. And, at the very least, those who recognize the authority of Tradition do not deserve to have their standing as Christians called into question by sola scripturists who have not only failed to provide clear Scriptural support for their doctrine, but who have manifestly misunderstood the Scripture that they have offered (see the discussion of 2Tim.3 earlier in the thread). This latter fact does not itself speak well for the doctrine of sola scriptura.

To each is given what God intends upon giving. Eph 6:24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.


Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

One Way was given in Christ Jesus and we can rest upon HIM (Luke 3:4 Mark 1:3 Matthew 3:3)

Life or death is the choice. Should it be what we follow, or who we follow.. (same choice)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Lets talk about the oft stated fact there are more sacred writings in Christianity than the 66 Books of the KJV.

All these extra books can possibly do is add some history. They CANNOT change any doctrine or subtract anything.

If these extra books do NOT agree with the other 66 books, then they are FALSE.

Otherwise, you would have the Bible contradicting itself, and there are NO contradictions of substance in the Bible. (Contrary to what the Atheists love to say)

Therefore to say that Tradition, written or oral, can give us anything other than what is written in the Bible is false.

---

Galveston,

If you allow me to say something on the subject you are discussing, I will add that the “Nova Vulgata”, is the latest official version approved by the RCC in 1979, has 73 books, of which 46 in the OT and 27 in the NT.

This text is the reviewed edition made by the friars of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome during the rule of St. Pious X. All these books were revised and checked against the modern editions in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

There may appear some fragments of paragraphs which have been adapted to modern use of the language just because the first Vulgata in Latin (i.e. the revision of the old Latin texts commissioned by Pope Damasus I) dates back to the 404 AD. This first revision was the responsibility of Saint Jerome, who was aided by some learned rabbis for the translation of the O.T. from the original in Hebrew, and by some other scholars for the Latin revision.

This first Vulgata became the officially promulgated version of the Bible of the RCC, and in the so called Clementine Edition, in the 13th century (therefore, long before the KJV, which dates from the year 1611, when first edited by the Church of England. This edition had the 46 books of the O.T. the 27, of the NT, and 3 in the Apocrypha, that is, those 3 books whose canonicity is either rejected or doubted. In some editions of the Bible (the RCC for one) they are completely omitted.

• The 3 books which are not found in the canon of the Council of Trent were moved into an appendix “ne prorsus interirent," "lest they utterly perish", and they are:
• Prayer of Manasses
• 3 Esdras (1 Esdras in the King James Bible)
• 4 Esdras (2 Esdras in the King James Bible)

The 7 books missing in the KJV of the OT. as compared with the Vulgata (both the old and the modern) are: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch and Ecclesiasticus or Sirach.

Should you wish some additional information as to why there is that difference between most Protestant Bibles and the RCC, please let me know.

Other than that, let us say that most Christians admit the Bible was written (especially the O.T.) under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but the actual writers were more than 40, among which there were shepherds, farmers, priests, philosophers, fishermen, doctors in medicine and kings. Consequently, it is already a marvelous miracle that despite the different cultural levels of the authors and the time elapsed to complete the Bible, it is so coherent and unified in purpose and in depth.

Still, the different interpretations derived from the many translations into different languages by different scholars, exegetes and translators make it difficult to discern these copies from the original.

On the other hand the stories were initially orally transmitted, and probably 10 centuries before Christ they started to be written. The original Hebraic text had only consonants. How these texts were to be read was transmitted also orally the next thousand years, until some learned Jews, well in our Era and in a long term of several centuries, rewrote the texts with vowels and punctuation signs, which resulted into the so called “masoretic” (from “Masora” = Tradition) text.

As you can understand these oral transmissions may have had to be adapted to the available know-how of the story-teller as well as to the average knowledge of the people they were addressed to.

Long before the “masoretic” text, in the 3rd century BC, the King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus (309 – 246 BC) commissioned the translation of the O.T. into Greek, which was carried out by some 70 scholars. This translation is known by the name of “Septuagint” or LXX.

As for the texts of the Hebraic Bible before the masoteric texts a very helpful tool has been the discovery of the Qumran scrolls in 1945, which have allowed availing ourselves of copies much older than those we had so far.

The original NT was written in Koine Greek by several authors, most probably after the 45 AD. Greek was chosen because it was the common language of the Eastern Roman Empire whereas Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, was spoken only by a few. It is believed that the Vatican keeps in its Museum some 3000 original papyrus and 2200 lectionaries (books containing a collection of scripture readings) of the N.T.

The oldest original text we have is the Rylands Papyrus P-52 (from the year 120 to 130 AD), at present kept at the John Rylands University, in Manchester, U.K. It contains some fragments from the Gospel of St. John (18:31-33).

The most important Codex is probably “The Codex Alexandrinus” (London, British Library), a 5th century manuscript of the Greek Bible containing the majority of the Septuagint and the N.T.

As regards the most complete text of the Hebraic Bible, we may refer to “The Codex Leningradensis”, containing the masoteric text from the end of the 10th century AC. It is housed at the National Library of Russia, in Saint Petersburg.

I mention all this information because when we are referring to the Holy Bible and its contents we should never forget how it was written (from approximately 1450 BC, in Moses times to approx. the year 100 AC), translated throughout the centuries into more than 2000 languages and finally, since Gutenberg printed the first one in 1454 AC, built up in several versions (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant).

All this has to induce us in my opinion to be very cautious in our criticism of some Books or in considering one version as the only true one and the others false… or bogus
:):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

To each is given what God intends upon giving. Eph 6:24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.


Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

One Way was given in Christ Jesus and we can rest upon HIM (Luke 3:4 Mark 1:3 Matthew 3:3)

Life or death is the choice. Should it be what we follow, or who we follow.. (same choice)

---

If you mean eternal life or eternal death, I agree with you. If you refer to death here in our Planet there is no choice. We all are to die! So we better decide down here who we want to follow for later on, it may be too late! :):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

heh heh, even after you acknowledge being wrong

---

It's really difficult to get past reading everything as literal truth, isn't it. I was quoting you, Tom. Please note the quote marks.

And what about the other four traditions, in addition to sola scriptura, that you hold?