Bidam:


You actually ran away with your tail between your legs. As far as you are concerned anyone against your views on premarital sex being sexually immoral is following tradition of men. I just dey laff..hehehehehe.

OLAADEGBU:


You said premarital sex is not a sin. Answer the objections it takes you almost a month to come back after a lot of heckling and when you are eventually pulled out of hibernation you begin to answer irrelevant questions beating about the bush.

You are one kind funny dude. I have answered this your question on that thread. It's very simple - fornication is a sin BUT pre-marital sex is never mentioned as part of sin of fornication. If you have any objection, go to scripture and let scriptures be the final authority...Sola Scriptura, remember!!!

OLAADEGBU:


You don't have to be braggadocious, didn't you copy and paste the answer on that righteousness thread? You should have learnt by now that if you point an accusing finger at others your remaining for digits are pointing back at you.

Na now I know say you dumb as anything......

You can't even discern I did that to prove a point? SMH Wetin I wan take your answers from website do while I have the word? Na you be master copy copy and you can't even stand the test\truth of what you copy and paste. SMH for you!!!

Bidam:
You actually ran away with your tail between your legs. As far as you are concerned anyone against your views on premarital sex being sexually immoral is following tradition of men. I just dey laff..hehehehehe.

I know say two of una na family.... Abeg, I no wan promote pages for some dumb thread. Let scripture alone be the authority.

Abeg Oh! Make Una No Derail Dis Trend!

Goshen360:




You are one kind funny dude. I have answered this your question on that thread. It's very simple - fornication is a sin BUT pre-marital sex is never mentioned as part of sin of fornication. If you have any objection, go to scripture and let scriptures be the final authority...Sola Scriptura, remember!!!

Following you line of reasoning, should we also assume that the doctrine of the trinity is wrong since the word trinity cannot be found in Scriptures?

Sola Scriptura is a victim of causa sui. It tries to beget its own validity from itself and fails as a result. To base Christianity solely around the Bible is to deny that the early Christians were Christians at all. Even Christianity's history denies the plausibility of Sola Scriptura, because it shows the process whereby the books were written by men.

Goshen360:


Na now I know say you dumb as anything......

You can't even discern I did that to prove a point? SMH Wetin I wan take your answers from website do while I have the word? Na you be master copy copy and you can't even stand the test\truth of what you copy and paste. SMH for you!!!

Either you copy and paste once or often the fact is you do it. So, if you live in a glass house don't throw stones.

OLAADEGBU:


So you agree with Goshen on his stand on premarital sex? What does your tradition say about Paedophiles ministering to you as priests?

that is why i love apostolic tradition, whenever you are in doubt u recieve clarity.

Both premarital sex and pedophilia are heavy condemn in sacred Tadition. So face your sola scriptura arguement.

Ubenedictus:


that is why i love apostolic tradition, whenever you are in doubt u recieve clarity.

Both premarital sex and pedophilia are heavy condemn in sacred Tadition. So face your sola scriptura arguement.

Your tradition is not an authority to Christians the inspired Scriptures is. Premarital sex would have resulted in execution under the Mosaic laws a fate Virgin Mary would have suffered if she had committed the sin before marriage.

OLAADEGBU:


Your tradition is not an authority to Christians the inspired Scriptures is. Premarital sex would have resulted in execution under the Mosaic laws a fate Virgin Mary would have suffered if she had committed the sin before marriage.

even the bible disagrees with you and convicts you of lying, apostolic Tradition has always been a source of authority in the christian Church that is why the bible say to "hold fast to the tradition you have recieved frome us".

if you do not believe in the authority of apostolic Tradition then u are not even following the bible.

Ubenedictus:


even the bible disagrees with you and convicts you of lying, apostolic Tradition has always been a source of authority in the christian Church that is why the bible say to "hold fast to the tradition you have recieved frome us".

if you do not believe in the authority of apostolic Tradition then u are not even following the bible.

All the apostolic tradition ended when Apostle John wrote the last book of the Bible. Any other tradition that does not agree with the 66 books are discarded.

OLAADEGBU:


All the apostolic tradition ended when Apostle John wrote the last book of the Bible. Any other tradition that does not agree with the 66 books are discarded.

Including the tradition that selected the books of the bible.

PastorAIO:


Including the tradition that selected the books of the bible.

Rather, the canon used in separating the chaff from the wheat.

Ubenedictus:


even the bible disagrees with you and convicts you of lying, apostolic Tradition has always been a source of authority in the christian Church that is why the bible say to "hold fast to the tradition you have recieved frome us".

if you do not believe in the authority of apostolic Tradition then u are not even following the bible.

The oral tradition is what is referred to and that has been codified in the 66 books of the Bible. Your church tradition that asserts that the creation account in the book of Genesis is an allegory instead of history is not an authority to the body of Christ.

OLAADEGBU:


The oral tradition is what is referred to and that has been codified in the 66 books of the Bible. Your church tradition that asserts that the creation account in the book of Genesis is an allegory instead of history is not an authority to the body of Christ.

this is another lie spread by your likes....
Nowhere does the bible claim to contain all apostolic Tradition, nowhere did it even claim that the new testament was written to compile the apostolic Tradition. That is a lie plain and simple.


What is found in the bible is that the bible clearly points away from itself, the bible clearly says not everything Jesus said or did were recorded. The bible clearly shows that the apostles prefered to give their teaching orally i.e face to face than thru letters, infact the letter were simply an invention of neccesity which were inspired by the holyspirit. The bible also clearly shows that the apostolic Traditions are to be transmitted, believe and considered authoritative in the Christian church.

The idea that all apostolic tradition is found in the bible is not supported by the bible, and conradicts the bible.

Ubenedictus:


this is another lie spread by your likes....
Nowhere does the bible claim to contain all apostolic Tradition, nowhere did it even claim that the new testament was written to compile the apostolic Tradition. That is a lie plain and simple.

Jesus, the OT prophets or the apostles didn't refer to traditions but to Scriptures alone.

Ubenedictus:


What is found in the bible is that the bible clearly points away from itself, the bible clearly says not everything Jesus said or did were recorded. The bible clearly shows that the apostles prefered to give their teaching orally i.e face to face than thru letters, infact the letter were simply an invention of neccesity which were inspired by the holyspirit. The bible also clearly shows that the apostolic Traditions are to be transmitted, believe and considered authoritative in the Christian church.

Show me where the Bible says the bolded.

Ubenedictus:


The idea that all apostolic tradition is found in the bible is not supported by the bible, and conradicts the bible.

The Scriptures are authoritative to the Christian church and not the church traditions. Enough of these diversions, read up on the thread below for more on church traditions.

https://www.nairaland.com/2036494/should-catholic-tradition-equal-greater

OLAADEGBU:


Jesus, the OT prophets or the apostles didn't refer to traditions but to Scriptures alone.

that means you are ignorant of the bible, here are a few examples of jewish traditions and extra biblical books referenced by the apostles scripture

Book of Enoch (Jude 4,6,13,14–15,[23] 2
Peter 2:4;3:13[23][24])
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Colossians
4:16 "read the epistle from Laodicea"
Life of Adam and Eve (2 Corinthians
11:14 "Satan as an angel of light", 12:2
"Third Heaven"[25]
A lost section of the Assumption of
Moses (Jude 9 "Michael.. body of Moses"
Martyrdom of Isaiah (Hebrews 11:37
"they were sawn in two"

OLAADEGBU:

Show me where the Bible says the bolded.



The Scriptures are authoritative to the Christian church and not the church traditions. Enough of these diversions, read up on the thread below for more on church traditions.

The oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By
preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That
word is the good news which was
preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is,
communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from
me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). (TRANSMISSION) Here we see the
first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul
instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–, as a reminder to Timothy of how he
should conduct his ministry.

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . .
Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From
the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book.

The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was
handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul.
Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14.

Ubenedictus:


that means you are ignorant of the bible, here are a few examples of jewish traditions and extra biblical books referenced by the apostles scripture

Book of Enoch (Jude 4,6,13,14–15,[23] 2
Peter 2:4;3:13[23][24])
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Colossians
4:16 "read the epistle from Laodicea"
Life of Adam and Eve (2 Corinthians
11:14 "Satan as an angel of light", 12:2
"Third Heaven"[25]
A lost section of the Assumption of
Moses (Jude 9 "Michael.. body of Moses"
Martyrdom of Isaiah (Hebrews 11:37
"they were sawn in two"

Who wrote the book of Enoch?

Ubenedictus:


The oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By
preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That
word is the good news which was
preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is,
communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from
me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). (TRANSMISSION) Here we see the
first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul
instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–, as a reminder to Timothy of how he
should conduct his ministry.

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . .
Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From
the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book.

The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was
handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul.
Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14.

All your points here have been muted in the relevant thread below:

https://www.nairaland.com/2036494/should-catholic-tradition-equal-greater

OLAADEGBU:


Who wrote the book of Enoch?

non seqiter.

That is an example that clearly shows that the apostles used extra biblical jewish traditions.

OLAADEGBU:


All your points here have been muted in the relevant thread below:

https://www.nairaland.com/2036494/should-catholic-tradition-equal-greater

sorry dear, no thread can mute the fact that the bible clearly bears witness to the transmission of apostolic Tradition, its use and its authority in the christian. Anyone who denies this teaches falsely.

Ubenedictus:


non seqiter.

That is an example that clearly shows that the apostles used extra biblical jewish traditions.

Who told you my question is not relevant? The fact that Enoch made that prophecy does not imply that "the book of Enoch" was written by Enoch. My question again us: who wrote the "book of Enoch"?

Ubenedictus:


sorry dear, no thread can mute the fact that the bible clearly bears witness to the transmission of apostolic Tradition, its use and its authority in the christian. Anyone who denies this teaches falsely.

Your so called apostolic tradition only started in the 4th century. How then did the Bible bear witness to what you wrote in your church Tradition?

OLAADEGBU:


Your so called apostolic tradition only started in the 4th century. How then did the Bible bear witness to what you wrote in your church Tradition?

actually apostolicTradition started in the 1st century as scriptures bear witness.

OLAADEGBU:


Who told you my question is not relevant? The fact that Enoch made that prophecy does not imply that "the book of Enoch" was written by Enoch. My question again us: who wrote the "book of Enoch"?

that again is not relevant, the fact is that the apostles made use of jewish traditions even in the bible, wether the book was truely writtten by enoch or not is not relevant.

The fact is the bible records traditions, even the apostles used them, no it is ur business to prove otherwise.

Ubenedictus:


that again is not relevant, the fact is that the apostles made use of jewish traditions even in the bible, wether the book was truely writtten by enoch or not is not relevant.

The fact is the bible records traditions, even the apostles used them, no it is ur business to prove otherwise.

Olaadegbu, this kurukere move you're trying to make by asking who wrote the book of Enoch will not pay you at all. You'll open a can of worms about who wrote each and every one of the books of the bible. And if your argument is that the autographs are inauthentic therefore the book is false then you must dismiss your bible likewise.

PastorAIO:


Olaadegbu, this kurukere move you're trying to make by asking who wrote the book of Enoch will not pay you at all. You'll open a can of worms about who wrote each and every one of the books of the bible. And if your argument is that the autographs are inauthentic therefore the book is false then you must dismiss your bible likewise.

Why?

OLAADEGBU:


Why?

Because we don't know who wrote most of the books of the bible. They were assigned authors by tradition.

PastorAIO:


Because we don't know who wrote most of the books of the bible. They were assigned authors by tradition.

What you need to know is that the Scriptures where written by holy men who were moved by the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible.

PastorAIO:


Olaadegbu, this kurukere move you're trying to make by asking who wrote the book of Enoch will not pay you at all. You'll open a can of worms about who wrote each and every one of the books of the bible. And if your argument is that the autographs are inauthentic therefore the book is false then you must dismiss your bible likewise.

ola is just playing his silly game, the authors of many books in the new testament were name by tradition only, the bible he is holding is his hand is largely a product of tradition, the same bible records extra biblical jewish traditions and the same bible asks the christian to hold steadfastly to apostolic Traditions, but ola prefers to play his game of stawman, his aim is to bring the thred to an end by displaying is ignorance or rather his insincerity.