And what did they have before Scripture was written.
The word of mouth, person to person, spread the Gospel — this is called Holy Tradition.
And what did they have before Scripture was written.
The word of mouth, person to person, spread the Gospel — this is called Holy Tradition.
***
Yeah, except for the fact that Romanist ‘Holy Tradition’ contradicts the teaching of the Apostles and Jesus himself.
I think I’ll take the actual teaching of the Apostles and Jesus himself over some nebulous ‘Tradition,’ thank you.
They had Scripture....it's called the Old Testament.
Additionally, Paul's letters had been accorded as Scripture very early in the life of the church. Paul's writings were completed between 49-66 AD. We know from Paul's instructions these were being circulated among the churches.
Acts was written around 61 AD.
Mark ~ 50 AD
Luke ~60 AD
Matthew ~ 60s AD
John ~ 85-90 AD
The Gospel message had spread all the way to Rome by 58 AD and very possibly earlier just after Pentecost.
The word of mouth, person to person, spread the Gospel — this is called Holy Tradition.
However, what is not attested to in the written accounts of the New Testament are many of the key aspects of Rome. Indeed, when these are examined we see they developed much, much later than the first century and are at odds with what is revealed in Scripture. So many of the ECFs Roman Catholicism claims received their instructions from the Apostles are in contradiction with each other they nullify each other and contradict the New Testament.
If Rome was so confident of what the ECFs wrote was passed down from the Apostles, they should have incorporated them in their canon when it was formalized at Trent.
That they didn't is telling.
A Catholic post, now has virtually no replies other than the same four or five anti Catholic trolls, who are now talking to each other since they aren’t getting fed anymore.