Free Republic

Hey, but you all just go on ahead and rely on word of mouth and add ons to Scripture, just like the Pharisees did.

The funny part of about what you wrote above is that the Protestant churches tend to be the strictest and most Pharisaical in their interpretations of scripture, and yet they all disagree! The reason for this is that guidance is needed to properly interpret Scripture (see Acts 8:31 and Heb 5:12) and they base their interpretations on their own peculiar oral traditions unmoored from anything but their own whims.

But it’s worth reading how it turned out for them and what Jesus had to say about it.

And Jesus's words were passed down verbally until they were eventually written down, sometimes by people who never met Him. Jesus didn't write a book like Mohammad or Joseph Smith did. Jesus left us with a Church which assembled, approved, and preserved the Scriptures you hold so dear. The fact is that your denomination, whatever it is, chose to leave this Church and take nothing but the book and their own unique interpretations of it. Not everything was written down in the Bible (John 21:25) and so an underlying assumption of your beliefs is faulty and this will unfortunately but inevitably lead to other errors in how your denomination's oral tradition interprets Scripture.

Scripture failing to mention that something happened doesn't give people license to make stuff up, claim it happened, and pass it off as Truth, simply because because *it could have happened.*

Sure, but Scripture failing to mention something doesn't mean that it didn't happen, either. Scripture isn't a complete history, and our understanding of Christ was passed down to us both through written and oral traditions and practices.

But Scripture does say it's sufficient.

2 Timothy 3:14-17

If Scripture were insufficient then it couldn't make the man of God complete, nor equipped for EVERY good work.

Scripture is certainly profitable and useful (from the Greek ophelimos) for teaching, but that doesn't make it mandatory or sufficient for teaching every individual point of theology, and not at all without Tradition (2 Thess 2:15). There are far too many seriously misguided and contradictory Christian sects in history and even today to believe that Scripture alone is sufficient.

Also, many of the Epistles weren't yet written and none of the New Testament books were in the Canon of Sacred Books when St. Paul wrote this. Much less when Timothy would have been a child. To take these verses as a justification for Sola Scriptura would mean that only the Old Testament was binding and that the New Testament wasn't necessary at all.

No. Tradition is a practice handed down through generations.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition

1 a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (such as a religious practice or a social custom)

There is nothing about "generations" in the first definition you listed.

Even preaching another’s message, is not *tradition*. Passing on a message is not *tradition* either.

Certainly the early practices and teachings of the Church were past down in the form of oral traditions. Almost everything of what was eventually written in the Gospels was first passed on as oral tradition.

Preaching is NOT *oral tradition*.

Preaching what others have preached is, in fact, oral tradition.

And it’s irrelevant that all they had was the OT. That’s because the NT hadn’t been written yet. They were living it and becoming part of it.

The verse in question only referred to what was in the Old Testament, everything else is just your extrapolation.

The Bereans were commended for searching Scripture to verify Paul’s message. And regardless of how much they had, just the OT, the principle is the same.

Maybe, but your extrapolation about the principle being the same certainly isn't valid. Unless, of course, you are referencing some oral tradition...

They went to the only sure and reliable source. Scripture. God’s word.

Only? You might have a point if scripture specifically says they didn't do anything else, but scripture failing to mention something happened doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Again, you are making conclusions outside of scripture. You seem to have quite an oral tradition you are relying on!

It’s pretty staggering when you think about it, that people would say what God breathed out and inspired is not good enough.

It's a shame that scripture doesn't say that it is sufficient. Then you might have a point. However, without scripture explicitly saying what you want it to say, only your tenuous oral tradition is saying that.

Preaching is NOT *oral tradition*.

Preaching what others have preached is, in fact, oral tradition.

And it’s irrelevant that all they had was the OT. That’s because the NT hadn’t been written yet. They were living it and becoming part of it.

The verse in question only referred to what was in the Old Testament, everything else is just your extrapolation.

The Bereans were commended for searching Scripture to verify Paul’s message. And regardless of how much they had, just the OT, the principle is the same.

Maybe, but your extrapolation about the principle being the same certainly isn't valid. Unless, of course, you are referencing some oral tradition...

They went to the only sure and reliable source. Scripture. God’s word.

Only? You might have a point if scripture specifically says they didn't do anything else, but scripture failing to mention something happened doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Again, you are making conclusions outside of scripture. You seem to have quite an oral tradition you are relying on!

It’s pretty staggering when you think about it, that people would say what God breathed out and inspired is not good enough.

It's a shame that scripture doesn't say that it is sufficient. Then you might have a point. However, only your tenuous oral tradition is saying that.

Here you go. Acts 17:11.

Now you do realize that the word they received would be the oral tradition, and that the scriptures that are being referring to in that verse would be the old testament, don't you?

Bibi made a mistake on 10/7.

Apparently Bibi made a series of mistakes long before 10/7. He had the head of Massad facilitate Qatar funding of Hamas. Ostensibly this was to buy Hamas off, but it was more likely that his intent was to keep the Gazans from having a government stable enough for there to be pressure to make a peace deal. That and the fact that Hamas was allowed a 20 hour ramp and murder rampage should be enough to permanently end his career.

NY Slimes: "‘Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas"

He is a long-time friend of Mitt Romney and was one of the first world leaders to congratulate Biden. Freepers should be careful before giving him their unconditional support.

Meanwhile, the lunatic who attacked Rand Paul, broke of hia five ribs, and almost killed him, was initially sentenced to only 30 days on essentially the same federal charges.

Michael Flynn. The Deep State may be more afraid of him than even Trump.

He is certainly my first choice.

If I understand the full context of what she wrote about the shooting, an unsuppervised one-year old puppy at worst killed a chicken. Having owned both chickens and hunting dogs, I can say from personal experience that you may simply need to keep them apart. The fact that she shot and killed a puppy shows that she is a cold-hearted witch. The fact that she published the experience in a book she wrote shows that she is too stupid for higher office.

Now that it has been exposed that she lied about meeting a famous world leader, and is apparently doubling down on it with this latest interview, it is clear that she is a barefaced liar and unfit for any public office.

Yeah...no thanks.

None of the NATO county governments today (including the US government) could sustain the personnel loses resulting from a peer-level military conflict. After the loss of their first thousand casualties in a month, every one of these countries will withdraw and leave the Ukrainians to an even worse fate.

Old story. She later signed a bill to ban transgender men from playing on women’s teams. Don’t carry water for Democrats. They lie with impunity.

A much watered down bill, and only after a righteous public outcry. She has always put her big donors first. She was never a real conservative.

If I understand the full context of what she wrote, an unsuppervised one-year old puppy at worst killed a chicken. Having owned both chickens and hunting dogs, I can say from personal experience that you may simply need to keep them apart. The fact that she shot and killed a puppy shows that she is a cold-hearted witch. The fact that she published the experience in a book she wrote shows that she is too stupid for positions of responsibility.

Russia sure keeps making noises about attacking NATO countries.

And NATO countries like France and the UK sure keep making noises about sending troops to attack Russia forces. This is all an escalating cycle, just like the Uniparty wants it to be.

The book James Rickards referenced can be downloaded free here:

archive.org: Antonio Gramsci - The Prison Notebooks

It is the origin of the new approach that Marxists has been taking of taking over institutions instead of destroying them.

Picture obviously dated as she's now 59

Unless she was 10 when she joined the band, she would have to be in her mid-60's by now.

So Justice Department argued that the president will only have legal protection from post-office prosecutions if he does exactly what the lawyers in the Department of Justice and in the Office of Legal Counsel tell him to do? As Justice Gorsuch (?) suggested, this will lead to either “Yes Men” Attorney General appointments or de rigueur self-pardons and pardons of all appointees. I didn’t hear anything about the weaponization of these post-office prosecutions against former president candidates like President Trump. Given the tone of the questions, I suggest a muddled decision which may mitigate but not dismiss the current prosecutions of President Trump. A precedent could also easily be set by this case that firmly establishes the authority of the entrenched bureaucracy to control future presidents.

Justice Alito just made a very good case for how upholding the appellate court decision could lead to presidents refusing to leave office or being imprisoned by their successor if they do.