Hostage to fear

[Randy Carson]

About 55 years. Why would that be a problem? Is there some particular point that you think is thereby undermined?
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.
Now, if you want to argue that Polycarp and Irenaeus were playing fast and loose with the facts of the gospel which had been handed down to them by John, then I'm interested to hear how you plan to make that case. Have you read the Martyrdom of Polycarp? [/qoute]

/sigh/  You're arguing my point and still failing to see it.  *What in my point would directly contradict Irenaeus that your church holds firm?*  Read Against All Heresies.  Even your Early Church Fathers devour catechism.  


Really now?  There are three books that we can actually date to the year, with the smallest margin of error, in the new testament.  James................ not one of them.  Try again.

It's 1 Thessalonians.


Exactly.  Because those things weren't important.  Physical laws (reality) suspended... reasons to believe?  Not miracles apparently.


Ahhh... cool.  So you believe in the "Q document".  What's *your* take on the documentary hypothesis?  Emphasis on *yours*. (no really this time... without copy/paste)


Because all those notes survived.  Right.  They certainly wouldn't have been retained as relics of the tradition and kept as holy.     It's not like God preserves his word or anything.


And that part about stoning your own children?  

My favorite part of your post.  I ask you for your understanding... you copy/paste catechism.  

---

Dude, give me a break. Sure, God COULD have just put us all in some condominium somewhere in the future with lots of air conditioning and an all you can eat buffet. But then we'd all be robots with no free will. What would be the point?

Sorry, the rest of this is nonsense.

So... no need to respond to them, I suppose.  lol

Sorry... your arguments are nonsense.

You can't address the underlying issues of theodicy.  You've been prompted, but not even come close in your attempts.

Theodicy.  Address that.  Without copy/pasting.

---

My favorite part of your post.  I ask you for your understanding... you copy/paste catechism.  

---

So... no need to respond to them, I suppose.  lol

Sorry... your arguments are nonsense.

You can't address the underlying issues of theodicy.  You've been prompted, but not even come close in your attempts.

Theodicy.  Address that.  Without copy/pasting.

Your arguments are flawed.  How do you know that today's ISIS suicide bombers don't *know* their deity is commanding them to their actions?   You simply don't know.  This is called argument from authority.  

Except your authority cannot be proven.  Sorry, mate... like I said, I'm sure you're a good dude... but you're more of the same.

---

I did. A long time ago. Did you? I'll do it for you:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Dude the most you can do is copy/paste from catechism?

*THIS* is exactly why I didn't go to the church looking for answers that I already knew the questions to.

Also... instead of running to catechism, try an interlineary.  Seriously.  You'll see your church MISSES THE POINT.  The words "holy" and "sacred", though translated the same in your Douay Rheims... meant ENTIRELY different things in ancient Canaan.

Again... get back to theodicy.  Especially how extra ecclesiam nulla salus relates to the catechism you love to quote when the Roman Catholic Church declares God's blood atonement was made for *all men*.

THAT is where your faith's problem is.  Theodicy.

Convince me on that, and you'll be helping.  Until then... you're just parroting.

---

Ummmmmm.... because I'm not omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent...  for starters??

/sigh/  You mean to tell me you *really* don't see the failure of logic here?

The man has a limited sphere of influence in what he can "allow"... God's sphere of influence is infinite (according to you).  So when we question God's indifference to human suffering... God says "meh... your fault!"  Your god...

...is so small.

Dude, you have GOT to fix the formatting. Responding to this will be next to impossible.