"Sacred Tradition", is it allowed to be above scripture.

[winsome]

Everything is scripture, but not every scripture is correct

The Bible gives us the guideline how to determine what is and what is not correct, and that is to look at the fruit. .

Not every scripture is correct?

Do you really mean that?

Yes, I do accept that what is called canon today.
And no, same as you I have not read every one of the possible writings that were considered.

You therefore accept that what is scripture, and what is not, was determined by men in the past, actually by the Catholic Church.

You must assume that it was infallible in that instance or your faith is based on sand.

You accept that particular tradition but not others?

Now back to history.
History is an OBJECTIVE account of events.

I would have said that history is what actually happened.

What we have are accounts of what happened.
How reliable and objective they are is a matter of discussion. 

The Bible is not objective. It does contain history, but it is not history.

It contains accounts of history.

Example:
Jesus died on the cross - history
Jesus died on the cross to save mankind - theology

The Bible is not objective. It does contain history, but it is not history.

Do you think the accounts of history in the Bible are fictional?

Your example is false. You are confusing interpretation of accounts, to determine what actually happened, to the meaning of what happened.

They are two very different things.

To take your example above. We can interpret the different accounts of Christ's death, which appear to conflict, to try and determine the correct sequence of events.

Why he died is a very different question and requires more than just the accounts of his death. That is theology

Catholicism is NOT founded on history, it is founded on the interpretation of history, in this case theology = faith!

I would agree that there is interpretation of the Bible. But we can see the founding of the Catholic Church in the historical accounts in scripture.

Interpretation of historical accounts to determined what happened is not theology.

Another example:
The earth came into existence = history
God created the earth = theology

Sure you could say that to you "God created the earth" is history. But then history no longer is objective.

That's why a historian is not a theologian, and a theologian is not a historian.

Again another false example.  You are just creating a straw man pitting historian's against theologian's.

Further, the Church CANNOT be founded on history, because the foundation of the church contains the foundation of salvation and eternal life.
Without the FUTURE prospect of eternal life, the church could not exist!!!
And we know of course that history is not future...it is past.

I think the best way to describe the foundation of the church is the Apostles Creed:

1. I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.

Now tell me, if this is the foundation of the church and the foundation of your faith...how many articles are historical?

When and how the Catholic Church was founded is history. It can be determined by examining documents which give historical accounts, the primary ones being the scriptural accounts of the NT.

Why it was founded is a different matter.

I am discussing the when and how the Catholic Church was founded. That is based on history - on historical accounts, primarily in the NT.

Finally, we are getting somewhere...

Now, this is what you said:
The Catholic Church's claims are founded on history. In the scriptures we can see Jesus founding his Church, appointing leaders, giving them a mission and the authority to carry out that mission, guaranteeing that they would teach the truth and the passing on of that mission and authority to their successors.

The claim we are disputing is the claim of infallibility.

Can you explain to me how when and how explain infallibility?

Catholica gave you the answer to that in post #26. Why do I need to go through that again?

Regarding the specific issue of papal infalliblity there is already a post going on that.

[AVZ]

Everything is scripture, but not every scripture is correct

The Bible gives us the guideline how to determine what is and what is not correct, and that is to look at the fruit. .

Not every scripture is correct?

Do you really mean that?

Yes, I do accept that what is called canon today.
And no, same as you I have not read every one of the possible writings that were considered.

You therefore accept that what is scripture, and what is not, was determined by men in the past, actually by the Catholic Church.

You must assume that it was infallible in that instance or your faith is based on sand.

You accept that particular tradition but not others?

Now back to history.
History is an OBJECTIVE account of events.

I would have said that history is what actually happened.

What we have are accounts of what happened.
How reliable and objective they are is a matter of discussion. 

The Bible is not objective. It does contain history, but it is not history.

It contains accounts of history.

Example:
Jesus died on the cross - history
Jesus died on the cross to save mankind - theology

The Bible is not objective. It does contain history, but it is not history.

Do you think the accounts of history in the Bible are fictional?

Your example is false. You are confusing interpretation of accounts, to determine what actually happened, to the meaning of what happened.

They are two very different things.

To take your example above. We can interpret the different accounts of Christ's death, which appear to conflict, to try and determine the correct sequence of events.

Why he died is a very different question and requires more than just the accounts of his death. That is theology

Catholicism is NOT founded on history, it is founded on the interpretation of history, in this case theology = faith!

I would agree that there is interpretation of the Bible. But we can see the founding of the Catholic Church in the historical accounts in scripture.

Interpretation of historical accounts to determined what happened is not theology.

Another example:
The earth came into existence = history
God created the earth = theology

Sure you could say that to you "God created the earth" is history. But then history no longer is objective.

That's why a historian is not a theologian, and a theologian is not a historian.

Again another false example.  You are just creating a straw man pitting historian's against theologian's.

Further, the Church CANNOT be founded on history, because the foundation of the church contains the foundation of salvation and eternal life.
Without the FUTURE prospect of eternal life, the church could not exist!!!
And we know of course that history is not future...it is past.

I think the best way to describe the foundation of the church is the Apostles Creed:

1. I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.

Now tell me, if this is the foundation of the church and the foundation of your faith...how many articles are historical?

When and how the Catholic Church was founded is history. It can be determined by examining documents which give historical accounts, the primary ones being the scriptural accounts of the NT.

Why it was founded is a different matter.

I am discussing the when and how the Catholic Church was founded. That is based on history - on historical accounts, primarily in the NT.

Finally, we are getting somewhere...

Now, this is what you said:
The Catholic Church's claims are founded on history. In the scriptures we can see Jesus founding his Church, appointing leaders, giving them a mission and the authority to carry out that mission, guaranteeing that they would teach the truth and the passing on of that mission and authority to their successors.

The claim we are disputing is the claim of infallibility.

Can you explain to me how when and how explain infallibility?

Catholica gave you the answer to that in post #26. Why do I need to go through that again?

Regarding the specific issue of papal infalliblity there is already a post going on that.

Yes please.
Kindly explain how history (how and when) can explain something theological (infallibility).

[Catholica]

Everything is scripture, but not every scripture is correct

The Bible gives us the guideline how to determine what is and what is not correct, and that is to look at the fruit. .

Not every scripture is correct?

Do you really mean that?

Yes, I do accept that what is called canon today.
And no, same as you I have not read every one of the possible writings that were considered.

You therefore accept that what is scripture, and what is not, was determined by men in the past, actually by the Catholic Church.

You must assume that it was infallible in that instance or your faith is based on sand.

You accept that particular tradition but not others?

Now back to history.
History is an OBJECTIVE account of events.

I would have said that history is what actually happened.

What we have are accounts of what happened.
How reliable and objective they are is a matter of discussion. 

The Bible is not objective. It does contain history, but it is not history.

It contains accounts of history.

Example:
Jesus died on the cross - history
Jesus died on the cross to save mankind - theology

The Bible is not objective. It does contain history, but it is not history.

Do you think the accounts of history in the Bible are fictional?

Your example is false. You are confusing interpretation of accounts, to determine what actually happened, to the meaning of what happened.

They are two very different things.

To take your example above. We can interpret the different accounts of Christ's death, which appear to conflict, to try and determine the correct sequence of events.

Why he died is a very different question and requires more than just the accounts of his death. That is theology

Catholicism is NOT founded on history, it is founded on the interpretation of history, in this case theology = faith!

I would agree that there is interpretation of the Bible. But we can see the founding of the Catholic Church in the historical accounts in scripture.

Interpretation of historical accounts to determined what happened is not theology.

Another example:
The earth came into existence = history
God created the earth = theology

Sure you could say that to you "God created the earth" is history. But then history no longer is objective.

That's why a historian is not a theologian, and a theologian is not a historian.

Again another false example.  You are just creating a straw man pitting historian's against theologian's.

Further, the Church CANNOT be founded on history, because the foundation of the church contains the foundation of salvation and eternal life.
Without the FUTURE prospect of eternal life, the church could not exist!!!
And we know of course that history is not future...it is past.

I think the best way to describe the foundation of the church is the Apostles Creed:

1. I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.

Now tell me, if this is the foundation of the church and the foundation of your faith...how many articles are historical?

When and how the Catholic Church was founded is history. It can be determined by examining documents which give historical accounts, the primary ones being the scriptural accounts of the NT.

Why it was founded is a different matter.

I am discussing the when and how the Catholic Church was founded. That is based on history - on historical accounts, primarily in the NT.

Finally, we are getting somewhere...

Now, this is what you said:
The Catholic Church's claims are founded on history. In the scriptures we can see Jesus founding his Church, appointing leaders, giving them a mission and the authority to carry out that mission, guaranteeing that they would teach the truth and the passing on of that mission and authority to their successors.

The claim we are disputing is the claim of infallibility.

Can you explain to me how when and how explain infallibility?

Catholica gave you the answer to that in post #26. Why do I need to go through that again?

Regarding the specific issue of papal infalliblity there is already a post going on that.

Yes please.
Kindly explain how history (how and when) can explain something theological (infallibility).

It is simple.  I'll explain it more simply to you.

A long time ago Jesus walked the Earth, and some people witnessed it.  One thing he did was to found a Church.  Another thing he did was to promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide that church into all truth.  These are historical events.  We know this today by accepting the gospels simply as historical record.  We have good reason to believe that they are accurate historical record because we also have record of an actual Church existing and dying for what they believed.  So their accounts are reliable, because it can be reasonably assumed that people do not die en masse for things they made up or lies they concocted.

None of this requires any faith at all, only reason.  All of it is historical record.  But we end up, in historical reality, with a church that has authority and which is guided by the Holy Spirit, according to the witness of historical events.

Then that same Church, using it's authority, looked at all the things written about Jesus and infallibly determined which ones were inspired and inerrant and which were not.  Those which were inspired we call the NT, and they included the same record of the events that demonstrate the founding of the Church recorded by the witnesses of Jesus (and their associates).

Through this we end up with historical documents (which also contain theology) which we have the guarantee of being inerrant.  And those same documents expound the reality of the Church being guarded by the Holy Spirit.

So historical events led to an infallible Church, and that infallible Church defines what is inspired record of those historical events.  And that inspired record also contains theology which reiterates that the Church is infallible.

Jesus founded an infallible Church, the Church was the witness that recorded scripture, the scripture bears witness to Jesus founding an infallible Church.  The infallible Church would still exist if scripture had never been written.  Sacred Scripture is simply one output that God intended as a result of founding that Church.

[AVZ]

It is simple.  I'll explain it more simply to you.

A long time ago Jesus walked the Earth, and some people witnessed it.  One thing he did was to found a Church.  Another thing he did was to promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide that church into all truth.  These are historical events.  We know this today by accepting the gospels simply as historical record.  We have good reason to believe that they are accurate historical record because we also have record of an actual Church existing and dying for what they believed.  So their accounts are reliable, because it can be reasonably assumed that people do not die en masse for things they made up or lies they concocted.

None of this requires any faith at all, only reason.  All of it is historical record.  But we end up, in historical reality, with a church that has authority and which is guided by the Holy Spirit, according to the witness of historical events.

Then that same Church, using it's authority, looked at all the things written about Jesus and infallibly determined which ones were inspired and inerrant and which were not.  Those which were inspired we call the NT, and they included the same record of the events that demonstrate the founding of the Church recorded by the witnesses of Jesus (and their associates).

Through this we end up with historical documents (which also contain theology) which we have the guarantee of being inerrant.  And those same documents expound the reality of the Church being guarded by the Holy Spirit.

So historical events led to an infallible Church, and that infallible Church defines what is inspired record of those historical events.  And that inspired record also contains theology which reiterates that the Church is infallible.

Jesus founded an infallible Church, the Church was the witness that recorded scripture, the scripture bears witness to Jesus founding an infallible Church.  The infallible Church would still exist if scripture had never been written.  Sacred Scripture is simply one output that God intended as a result of founding that Church.

Not even slightly correct.
Yes, the historical Jesus walked the earth and yes He had disciples, and yes He promised the Holy Spirit.
That is history.

But the fact that you BELIEVE he was the Savior, and the fact that you BELIEVE the Holy Spirit was indeed given, and the fact that you BELIEVE the church holds the truth...that my friend is NOT history, that is faith!

History does not concern itself with truth or untruth. History does not concern itself if indeed the church was guided in all truth.

I say it again, the foundation of your church is FAITH!
The theological discussion about infallibility is FAITH!

There is no way you can historically prove that the RCC is infallible.

"So historical events led to an infallible Church"
That is absolutely incorrect!
The historical events led to a church. The question if this church is infallible is a theological question.

You guys are so funny, don't know the difference between history and theology.
Primary school material.

[winsome]

It is simple.  I'll explain it more simply to you.

A long time ago Jesus walked the Earth, and some people witnessed it.  One thing he did was to found a Church.  Another thing he did was to promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide that church into all truth.  These are historical events.  We know this today by accepting the gospels simply as historical record.  We have good reason to believe that they are accurate historical record because we also have record of an actual Church existing and dying for what they believed.  So their accounts are reliable, because it can be reasonably assumed that people do not die en masse for things they made up or lies they concocted.

None of this requires any faith at all, only reason.  All of it is historical record.  But we end up, in historical reality, with a church that has authority and which is guided by the Holy Spirit, according to the witness of historical events.

Then that same Church, using it's authority, looked at all the things written about Jesus and infallibly determined which ones were inspired and inerrant and which were not.  Those which were inspired we call the NT, and they included the same record of the events that demonstrate the founding of the Church recorded by the witnesses of Jesus (and their associates).

Through this we end up with historical documents (which also contain theology) which we have the guarantee of being inerrant.  And those same documents expound the reality of the Church being guarded by the Holy Spirit.

So historical events led to an infallible Church, and that infallible Church defines what is inspired record of those historical events.  And that inspired record also contains theology which reiterates that the Church is infallible.

Jesus founded an infallible Church, the Church was the witness that recorded scripture, the scripture bears witness to Jesus founding an infallible Church.  The infallible Church would still exist if scripture had never been written.  Sacred Scripture is simply one output that God intended as a result of founding that Church.

Not even slightly correct.
Yes, the historical Jesus walked the earth and yes He had disciples, and yes He promised the Holy Spirit.
That is history.

But the fact that you BELIEVE he was the Savior, and the fact that you BELIEVE the Holy Spirit was indeed given, and the fact that you BELIEVE the church holds the truth...that my friend is NOT history, that is faith!

History does not concern itself with truth or untruth. History does not concern itself if indeed the church was guided in all truth.

I say it again, the foundation of your church is FAITH!
The theological discussion about infallibility is FAITH!

There is no way you can historically prove that the RCC is infallible.

"So historical events led to an infallible Church"
That is absolutely incorrect!
The historical events led to a church. The question if this church is infallible is a theological question.

You guys are so funny, don't know the difference between history and theology.
Primary school material.

The foundation of the Church is not Faith.

Jesus Christ founded the Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20)

Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 18:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)

He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

As Catholica said these are historical events attested by historical documents. And to quote him:
"All of it is historical record.  But we end up, in historical reality, with a church that has authority and which is guided by the Holy Spirit, according to the witness of historical events."

You say "The historical events led to a church. The question if this church is infallible is a theological question."

The historical record shows that the Church is infallible and that infallibility is guaranteed by Jesus Christ.