Kansasdad

I have tried to find such a verse and am not able to fine it?

I truly understand that you do not see how this is important, and I am not trying to pick on you. The reason this is important is exactly because of the situation we have on this thread. If what you say is true that Gods word was protects through basically unknown men that were unheard from by the majority, then how do we place our trust in the group of guys that gave us the cannon of the Bible. There are other groups who claim that other written material are infact Holy Scripture, written words like, The Gospel Q, The Egerton Gospel, Gospel of the Hebrews, or the Apocalypse of Peter. These writings have survived and we have them today so one could claim that God protected them. If we have no criteria to base our trust in the men that came up with the Bible, Then how can we trust that we had the right group of men in the first place. Without some criteria we open the door to questions like the one presented in this thread and we have no way of defending our position. Their claim is not that God didn't protect his word their claim is that we are not following that which God protected. The only defense one can have is that these men can trace their teaching back to the Apostles. Therefore any group that can not trace their teaching back to the Apostles would not be considered to have this protection from God. Otherwise the poster has a valid claim. That is why this is important.

Scripture is scripture, and the apostles who wrote it are the apostles we need to heed. None others. We can trust only that God preserved His word throught the work of valuable, yet fallible individuals, just like you and I. that is the miracle of God's Word. It is getting rather grating to read the phrase, "Apostolic Tradition" over and over like it was some sort of mantra. Is there another song in your repertoire? Ok how about Apostolic teaching. And you have once again side stepped the question at hand. If you continue to say what they taught about scripture was false then you can not turn around and say they had the protection of God to recognise true scripture from false. You cannot have it both ways. If they were not capable of recognising the Words of God then they were not capable of putting together the Bible. Which puts you back to the same delima. You can not claim that the books in the Bible are in fact the only accurate words of God in print with out also recognising the men who made that determination. If you denounce one you have to denounce the other. If you recognise one you must recognise the other. I know this puts you in a real difficult position. However if you maintain your position then the OP has a legitimate claim and you have no basis to refute him. Didn't I just communicate that God used fallible men in the process? It isn't their own minds that were at work in the "project". It was the supreme mind of God. His intelligence, His Spirit, His decision-making all filtered through fallible , weak gray matter. I am not in any difficult position and I do not have any illusions about these men. So once God was done creating the canon of the Bible, did all this knowledge just disappear. God abandoned them then? OH and what happened for the several hundred years after the Apostles and before the bible. How was his word protected for those generations?

OK not sure where we disagreed? I absolutely agree that not everything said lined up with scripture. One must always weigh it against scripture. Through the years there has been many practices that were NEVER considered apostolic Tradition, but merely the practice of some bishop. It was never considered infallible. It is important to determine which is which.

Scripture is scripture, and the apostles who wrote it are the apostles we need to heed. None others. We can trust only that God preserved His word throught the work of valuable, yet fallible individuals, just like you and I. that is the miracle of God's Word. It is getting rather grating to read the phrase, "Apostolic Tradition" over and over like it was some sort of mantra. Is there another song in your repertoire? Ok how about Apostolic teaching. And you have once again side stepped the question at hand. If you continue to say what they taught about scripture was false then you can not turn around and say they had the protection of God to recognise true scripture from false. You cannot have it both ways. If they were not capable of recognising the Words of God then they were not capable of putting together the Bible. Which puts you back to the same delima. You can not claim that the books in the Bible are in fact the only accurate words of God in print with out also recognising the men who made that determination. If you denounce one you have to denounce the other. If you recognise one you must recognise the other. I know this puts you in a real difficult position. However if you maintain your position then the OP has a legitimate claim and you have no basis to refute him.

Well at least we are making some progress here. So we clearly know that the books of the Bible are indeed scripture, (the words of God) because we know these men were taught by the Apostles and therefore knew what the Apostles taught, and could recognise false teachings. We also know that it is through this line of teaching that God protects his Word. If we have books or writings that have been "approved" from someone outside of the apostolic line of teaching we know it does not have the promise of protection from God. So the answer to the OP is, the only authority for the canon of the Bible flows through Apostolic Tradition because of the promise from God. All the books and writings that he is trying to introduce do not fall within this guideline, and therefore can not be considered scripture. If we do not recognise Apostolic Tradition we have no basis to reject the extra-Biblical writings the OP is trying to introduce. That is the danger in rejecting this truth. It opens the door to this exact type of thinking. But this can cause quite a problem for some people. We have a deciple of an Apostle who determined the canon of the Bible and has the protection of God in recognising scripture from non scripture. Then this same person tells us what this very scripture means and we don't agree with what he says. How can we reject it with out also negating his ability to recognise true words of God from false. God Bless, K.D.

So does everything we ever do have to be expressly described in scripture. Seriously Floatingaxe can you honestly evaluate why praying in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit bothers you.

Lets stop making any assumption here. Author, are you saying that the sign of the cross is against the teaching of scripture and thus it is a bad thing?

None of the responses have made "crossing yourself" anti-Biblical, or bad. Arthur and Floatingaxe are correct, it is not what we do that identify's us with Christ. It's what is in our hearts. If making the sign of the cross gives you a connection to Christ's death on the cross, and the Trinity, then so be it. But it's not necessary to Salvation and NOT doing that is not going to keep you from eternity with God, either. Can we agree on that? "Hi, Metro indeed! The "sign of the cross" is, for those of us who live by Holy Scripture as opposed to the traditions of man, pure poppycock." I guess it was comments like this that made me think otherwise. I took this to mean he believes that it is purly a tradition of man that is against the Holy Scriptures. Thus making it something bad. But I could be wrong.

Do you understand what Apostolic Tradition is? The question is how did this group of men, several hundred years after the Apostles, decide which writings were included. How did they decide from hundreds of writings which ones made up the canon. why not 67 books or 55 books. How did these men know what was authentic and what was not. Apostolic Tradition says that the Apostles taught people in the ways of Christ, and they put certain people of whom they taught in charge to teach the next generation, who in tern taught specific people for the next generation. We find this very example in the Bible. Apostolic Tradition says that God protected this process so that his word would not get changed. He protected it, even though these men were flawed. The rub is that there were other men teaching things differently. Other men that were not taught by the Apostles. These writings and teachings circulated all over the place. Therefore it is imperative that we can trace the teachings to the Apostles and not some other source. ie, Apostolic Tradition. If the tradition (teaching) did not have a line that could be traced back to the Apostles it was not considered authentic. If you reject this method of authentication then you have no criteria for accepting the Bible.

Nowhere did it say they carbon dated the material. And carbon dating has been show to have some major flaws. It is the best we have but far from totally accurate. K.D.

At the church I grew up in, they didn't preach that Catholics or their practices were evil. When we learned about Cults, Catholics never even came up. We learned the proper way to worship that is all. I do know it is a Catholic "thing", but I was never taught it was wrong, just different. That is good to hear, I know not all churches do this but some do. Just look at the responses and you can see an effort to make it out to be something bad. Not just different, but anti-biblical.

Actually, as an unbeliever, you are very right! Then answer his question. If you reject Apostolic Tradition by what criteria do you accept the canon of the bible? If God did not do it through Apostolic Tradition then How did he do it?

That's beautiful Fiosh. I don't understand why other religions don't do it. They don't because it has been branded as a Catholic "thing", and many churches preach that everything Catholic is evil, therfore they will fervently reject it no matter what.

Which makes perfect Human sense. Subsequently, the only way to believe is through faith that God would protect his word. God gives us a covenant that he will protect his word for all generations. Thus the only way a person can accept the canon of the Bible is to also accept that God did in fact protect his word as he promised. The only way this is possible is through Apostolic Tradition. So if a person rejects Apostolic Tradition then they reject Gods covenant. It truly is a matter of faith in God. I would point out though, that history does not disprove this possibility, it only offers alternative possibilities. It is very possible that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and there is definitely evidence to suggest this. It is also very possibility that the knowledge of the Apostles was handed down from generation to generation through appointed church leaders and there is much evidence to support this. There is also much evidence that teachings that were not supported in scripture were never adopted as sacred Apostolic Tradition, thus further evidence that God indeed does keep his promise. But you are correct it does come down to Faith. Do you believe that God could protect his words by using flawed human beings.

Thanks for posting this, Joe! We really do need to stop "cursing the darkness" and praying for the souls of these celebrities. Very well said Yes what she needs is prayer, What a powerful voice for God she could be.

How do they estimate it to be 25,000,000 years old?

That's part of it, yes. What are your thoughts? I also find that far too often when this question is asked many can't understand the question. They can't

That's part of it, yes. What are your thoughts? They can't

OH I just can't help myself Let me see if I am understanding the original question a little better. What you are wondering about is, how can a "Christian" accept the canon of the bible as being legit if they do not accept Apostolic Tradition as the authority that makes them legit. If you throw out Apostolic Tradition then how was one book chosen over another, by what criteria? Is that accurate?

Me too, Thanks!!!!!

\ The problem is we are faced with two choices, one group that at least tries to get it right but screws it up miserably, and a second group that doesn't even try. (caution gross generalization here!) So which do you prefer, one group that is a bunch of bumbling idiots or the other group that is crafty, conniving, and immoral. The problem is that both groups only partially represent Christian morals. For example, while the Republicans are largely pro-life and anti-same sex marriage. They are also as a rule nationalist, pro-war, anti-environment, and largely ignore issues of poverty and social justice. Conversely, while the Democrats are largely pro-choice and in some cases for same sex marriage, they are also much more apt to (rightly or wrongly) address issues of poverty and social justice, go to war as only a last resort, and are much more pro-environmental protection. Other than two traditional wedge issues, there is nothing very Christian about much of the Republican Platform. In fact, I remember a few years ago a study compared the social platform of the Catholic Church with the Republican and Democratic voting records, and the Social Platform of the Catholic Church was an 80% match with the Democratic voting record, the only area they diverged was on the issue of abortion. Think about it, neither party articulates a consistent ethic of life, neither party has "a coherent social policy which seeks to protect the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, the unborn, the infirm, the refugee, the homeless, and the poor." Neither party is opposed to abortion and capital punishment and economic injustice and assisted suicide and euthanasia and unjust war. They both represent parts of that, but neither party represents a consistent ethic in that regard. Just makes you want to go out and vote doesn't it.

\ The problem is we are faced with two choices, one group that at least tries to get it right but screws it up miserably, and a second group that doesn't even try. (caution gross generalization here!) So which do you prefer, one group that is a bunch of bumbling idiots or the other group that is crafty, conniving, and immoral.

Being how it was the OP who asked the question I don't see how this is a problem. Unless the nature of the elements is off limits to discuss.