Since when does a rational argument have an expiry date? Church arguments have actually been repeated for over 2000 years old. Isn’t it because Bible Christians can’t rebut deep theological arguments and drown when taken to the deep end of the pool. So they swim in the shallow end and what’s broken is not the record but the player. So this too will sound as a broken record. Advice: get the player fixed so that when you hear it once you hear it right.
LOL!
Catholics probably love your posts, but all the “extras” involved with Catholicism aren’t needed by non Catholic Christians.
Jesus is sufficient.
If those in your belief system need to read your intellectualistic posts concerning rituals and superfluous (to Christianity) dissertations over and over again, fine.
But for the rest of us, could you use that graphic?
I can’t fix your record player, you will have to do that.
Christians have been getting it right ever since Jesus called us to Him starting back when He walked the earth. Long before the creation of the Catholic Church.
It’s pretty simple to have a personal relationship with God through Jesus, would you like to see the scriptures?
It's not exactly an entirely rational argument, and the "church arguments" have not exactly stayed entirely all the same, being there admittedly have been [cough-cough] arguments which do not go back 2000 years, but instead were product of so-called theological development (and even "change" although that last is denied, even as "development is confessed).
Cardinal Newman -- was full of beans and fancy excuses, the latter of which were crafted to allow Rome to have things both ways, as in -- to say that nothing had changed -- but then declare that which had been introduced, the RCC (and the RCC alone) had authority to have had their own "revelation" towards.
As for your own comments, there are many places where loose assumption is presented as undeniable fact --- each of which would take a lot of time and space to properly address.
Here's an example;
There were very few of those who were in fact "taught first-hand", or even the first second hand as it were, who's writings come down to us to this day.
When one refers to so-called "Early Church Fathers" (which is something of a 19th century-origins nomenclature for a particular well-known set of documents) it is not inclusive of only those who were "first-hand witnesses".
Which means that to use the phrase "early Church fathers..taught by the Apostles..." one needs to determine first ---- which individuals were those ---- and then make some determination of what it is that was in actual fact taught.
As things progress, it becomes plain enough that not all those who came along later entirely agree with each other, and agree with those whom came before themselves.
Pretty much anyone who has studied those writers whom are referred to as "Early Church Fathers" (ECF's) agrees that they did not all agree with one another.
Rationally, we are left then with the task of sifting out that which they did most widely agree upon --- from earliest times.
Earlier is generally better in this process, if we truly desire to find out what it was they were taught (which was perhaps not in Scripture?) AND what it is they thought (or were taught) concerning Scripture.
Another example of that which you included that can be problematic is;
for among that which is attributed to Clement --- scholars who delve into ancient texts have well enough established there are portions which were not written by that particular Clement, and some else (I do not recall at this time precisely which) that is of dubious (or at least "contested") nature.
Even so, those sort of writings can still have value as far as showing what some later, anonymous writer thought well enough of, to make effort to put those words into 'Clement's' mouth. Clement is not alone in this regard. There was more than just a little bit of later arising "pseudo" this, and pseudo that...
I could go on with examination of the rest of your claims which you made (yourself having alleged the entire argument as being "rational") delving into what what Scriptural basis there are for those, and then further for what evidences there are for how such things came to be considered -- and did in fact vary, and change --- yet for now, to keep this note from becoming too overly long, I'll set that aside until such as the much less limited in scope portions which I highlighted as problematic, are addressed.
But spare us (by us, I mean the entire forum) the generalized insults aimed at all those perceived to be other-than Roman Catholic, yet are honestly enough otherwise identified as Christians, even identified as such by the RCC so-called "Magesterium".
Need I cite proof for that last portion? I do notice the higher [ahem] authorities of the RCC refrain from insulting the intelligence all these "other Christians".
You should try it some time...
How about doing this for us-- call it a favor for FR in general;
Make whatever claim it is that you so desire (that can be backed by firm evidence) -- while keeping the needless insults to others' intelligence -- to yourself?
You know, like this last part;
Obviously...that was posed as a question, yet lacked the proper punctuation. "Deep theological arguments" you say? And what are those?
I'll just go ahead and say these alleged-to-be "deep" arguments are often enough rejected not for reason that the so-called protestants whom examine them do not understand them --- but they are often rejected (many times, only in part, or for certain and particular aspects, though not rejected entirely as having *some* truth to them) for reason the basis and the implications of the arguments are well enough understood.
The "broken record" which was spoken of previously was nothing other than your own, oft-repeated (and shallow -- imagine that) screed, capped by insults, if not shot through with them from intro to end.
Being that you are "the player" of this repetitive [few] groove tune -- are you confessing you are in some way broken?
Logically, that would follow, although I do recognize the intent was (apparently) to push that all onto another here.
I do invite you to take your own advice.
Please take my advice...
(open up the tired eyes)