I note that you are avoiding or ignoring my question which directly relates to the topic - - show me where we can read the tradition so that we can verify what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
|
I note that you are avoiding or ignoring my question which directly relates to the topic - - show me where we can read the tradition so that we can verify what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
There were people who challenged Tradition very early on. The doctrine itself came to be more clearly defined in response to Gnosticism (as you pointed out in your very nice post on Irenaeus). But you're right: Neither Catholics nor Orthodox regard Gnostics as Fathers or Doctors of the Church. And the Orthodox doctrine regarding Tradition is not meaningfully different, for our purposes here, from that of the Catholic Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
If I understand what you're asking--and I may not--those parts of Tradition that are not contained in Scripture are to be found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
When the bible mentions the 12 Jesus Chose they were the original 12 including Judas.
ANY apostles chosen thereafter were additionals.
That was clearly understood by the east and west of The Church for centuries and is still is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Yes, but these were the 'early' heritics - very non-orthodox, e.g. Gnostic, Arians etc. I discounted them but I guess they would qualify in the sense that they rejected Tradition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
JoeT
Interesting. So are you then rejecting oral tradition? What do you do when these "fathers" disagree and contradict each other, as they do. Some contradict themselves, depending upon which writings you look at. Many contradict scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Is this in Scripture? I recall Matthias being chosen to be Judas's replacement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The twelve limitation is in the book of Revelation - speaking about future events.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Endorsed by God as the replacement? Really? I don't remember reading that in scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I was headed to bed some time ago. I'll continue in the morning work permitting
JoeT
I took you to be referring to my earlier post, when I referred to Scripture as part of that part of Tradition that was written down. I never claimed that the whole of Tradition was written down (though I did say that a lot of it has been over the years).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
In any event, though, as the OP I will once again ask you to address the topic of this thread. There is a further question pending, namely, how does the decision regarding which texts are Scriptural get made. I am particularly interested in hearing from views other than the Tradition-based view. If you care to share yours with us that would be great.
I also am headed for bed.
This is very interesting so I'll be back on the morrow, God willing.
Have a peace night with kind dreams.
Fred
That is strange. Akoue is speaking of written tradition and you suggest that means "rejecting" oral tradition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
By no means. We accept the Word of God in any form presented by the Church. Oral Tradition is part of Sacred Tradition.
We follow what Jesus taught (Matt 18:17). As we can see by studying history, some early Church Fathers fell into error. We don't accept the error they taught. We accept their orthodox teachings. The Church, which Jesus established to act in His name, judged what was orthodox and what was error:Quote:
What do you do when these "fathers" disagree and contradict each other, as they do. Some contradict themselves, depending upon which writings you look at. Many contradict scripture.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Then if it is not written down, we do not know what is contained within that tradition, and if the written portion contradicts scripture and itself, then why should we trust the oral when we don't even know what it contains and when this is supposedly the source from which the contradictory written tradition was written?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
The Scriptures are God breathed and they tell us Matthias was chosen by lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Acts 1:26
And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Unless you believe in chance, that means that God chose Matthias to be Judas replacement.
Right. So we know the process used and we can accept that what scripture records is inerrant, but where does scripture say that this was God's choice?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Think about it.
- There were 12 Apostles, and then Judas was gone, leaving 11.
- We are told that there are only 12 Apostles, therefore only one could be added to replace Judas.
- Paul was clearly and specifically chosen by God, as were the other 11.
- There is no evidence that God chose Matthias to be an Apostle.
Seems to me, when man establishes his beliefs, and traditions, and want all to follow that path, the name of God is always invoked, thereby making it Divine, and above reproach. Most of the worlds bibles are put together this way, and a devoted bunch of followers always hand picks what goes into them.
Man as high minded as he tries to be, or whatever his motives were back then, has always made his own traditions, to reflect his policies of the day. His goal was survival of his way of life, and continue as they that came before him, so truth is subjective, and the search for what is, lies in actively seeking that truth, not being told what the truth is. In accepting any truth from any bible, there is the danger of being closed to the facts, or even oblivious to the truth, when we see it, and can only really judge by the actions of those who are giving us the truth.
Not knocking any religion per say, just pointing out the personal responsibility we all have of the actions we partake of, and the path we choose to follow.
Prophesy rightly understood is God's revealed mystical foreknowledge of events yet to occur in the future, as well as, an understanding of the mystical meaning of events in the past and present when that mystical meaning has not been previously revealed; “…what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation or in knowledge or in prophecy or in doctrine?” (1 Cor 14:6) The noise of the event doesn't always revel God's mystical meaning behind the event, whether that event has occurred in the past, is occurring now, or will occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
With this understanding of prophesy, we can come to know that the Book of Revelations,
Is a mystical revelation of events across a broad spectrum of time. So, when it speaks of 12 Apostles in the book of revelations, it may be referring to a fugitive image of the original 12 Apostles in the past, it may be speaking of the 12 Apostles living at the time John wrote the Revelations, or it may be referring to a mystical 12 Apostles of the future.
But, what does this have to do with the topic?
JoeT
Proverbs 16:33Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
The Apostles, being Jews, cast lots to know God's will.
Scripture says that God chose Matthias to replace Judas:Quote:
Think about it.
- There were 12 Apostles, and then Judas was gone, leaving 11.
- We are told that there are only 12 Apostles, therefore only one could be added to replace Judas.
- Paul was clearly and specifically chosen by God, as were the other 11.
- There is no evidence that God chose Matthias to be an Apostle.
Acts 1 23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Where does Scripture say that St. Paul replaced Judas?
Why? Do you not have ears to hear?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
It doesn't.Quote:
and if the written portion contradicts scripture and itself,
You don't know what it contains. We do.Quote:
then why should we trust the oral when we don't even know what it contains
It isn't contradictory.Quote:
and when this is supposedly the source from which the contradictory written tradition was written?
Correction. It might contradict your opinions but it does not contradict itself or Scripture.
Doesn't Catholic Church Tradition include additions to Scripture?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I think you've missed the light when you turned the corner. Divine Traditions aren't established to constrain, rather to liberate. It marks God's reveled trail of Truth though a worldly wilderness terminating in the Divine; whereby each new journey needn't be preceded with cutting a new trail. Catholic Tradition requires a freely given ascension to Tradition becoming unfettered in truth. Where it follows that “not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth”. (St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Prima Q, 15 a5). God's Truth is absolute. Thus, we find Divine Traditions to be objective Truth as opposed to subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Devotion imposed on a “bunch of followers” is oppression. I don't know about you, but this god I'll avoid.
High-mindedness isn't a newly found characteristic of men, and motives should always be subject to scrutiny. But, looking at Christ's motives as described in Scripture certainly don't seem survivalist. Not unless you think men of His time just hung around on crosses to protect their way of life. Accepting the Truth of Scripture as guided by Church Tradition opens a world of Truth; a witness of which is in the lives of the Saints that followed.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Let's get real; yeah you are – I was born at night, but not last night. But, that's ok; maybe you just got to cut your own path for awhile. So, keep looking for a better way and someday you'll re-cross the Church's trail and decide to let it guide you.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Merry Christmas
JoeT
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by wondergirl
Joe already answered. And he is correct. No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So are you saying that you don't believe the book of Reveleation when it says that there are ONLY 12?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Again, where does it say that the choice of Matthias was endorsed by God?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
It effectively adds by including doctrines not found in scripture and contradicting things which are found in scripture. The Catholic church did add books to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And some of those doctrines are...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And some of those contradictions are...
And some of those books are...
Hi Wondergirl.
It is sometimes said that the Catholic Church added the so-called deuterocanonical books to the canon of the OT at Trent. Since the deuterocanonicals were included in the Septuagint, the OT Scripture that was used by many first century Jews and which is quoted in the NT, Catholics don't regard this as an addition to Scripture. In addition to direct quotes from the Septuagint in the NT, there are also numerous allusions and references to the deuterocanonical books themselves, including Maccabees and Wisdom.
But this just gets us back to the question: How do we know which texts are genuinely Scriptural? Tj says that the deuterocanonical books contradict Scripture. Now, I'm interested to see what he takes those contrdictions to be, but in order for that claim to go anywhere he must already assume that these books aren't themselves Scripture. He must already have chosen a different canon. But what certifies that choice as the right one, and that canon as the right canon in preference to another? In other words, for somebody to say that the deuterocanonicals contradict Scripture he must already have made up his mind that they are not themselves part of Scripture. And my question is: On what grounds, by means of what procedure, is it determined which texts belong to Scripture and which do not. If, as Tj has said above, the canon was determined by God, then this just pushes the question back a step: How do we know we are using the right canon, the one God intended for us? If we aren't to appeal to Tradition, the Church Fathers, the history of the early Church, etc. then I'm unlcear how anybody can be in a position to say of any book that it does or does not belong to the NT canon. We could end up with as many canons as there are people, and that leaves us with nothing that could count as any kind of standard at all.
So this is closely related to the OP: How do we know who is reading Scripture correctly and who is misunderstanding it? These are the two questions which I, at least, find to be quite difficult and also terribly important for anyone who believes in divine revelation through the written word. Earlier in this thread we were given an answer by those who look to Tradition to help resolve these matters. I'm interested to learn how people who do not appeal to Tradition approaach them.
I was raised in and belonged to a church body that believe Christ pointed to Himself, not to Peter, as the Rock upon which His Church would be built. I still agree with that understanding of those verses. That same church body believes that the collection of books Protestants calls the Apocrypha is not part of the canon, not the inspired Word of God, but is simply a collection of books that recounts a certain period of Jewish history, "the time between the testaments."Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Those are only two disagreements with Catholic Church Tradition.
You mean to your version, or perspective of the truth, and that's okay as long as free will is exercised to follow that tradition.Quote:
Tradition requires a freely given ascension to Tradition becoming unfettered in truth.
Again you make inference that you know the only truth and presume it is divine, as do so many others of other bibles, truths and traditions. Wars are fought on the premise that man knows God's truth, for all the good that has done man!Quote:
God's Truth is absolute. Thus, we find Divine Traditions to be objective Truth as opposed to subjective.
I wholeheartedly agree.Quote:
Devotion imposed on a “bunch of followers” is oppression. I don't know about you, but this god I'll avoid.
No doubt you have your heroes, as good people tend to be, no matter their perspective on truth, or their motives behind their actions, doing good deeds as an example to others.Quote:
Accepting the Truth of Scripture as guided by Church Tradition opens a world of Truth; a witness of which is in the lives of the Saints that followed.
That's my point, my search is over, and the path is clear, thanks to a personal relationship with a God that I understand, and will not put anything between me, and My God, not tradition, books, or anyone. That's my truth that I accept with free will. Its okay if you cannot grasp, or agree. But as long as your truth makes you happy, I truly am glad, and hope it shows you the path your seeking. We all have to start somewhere, in the way of life.Quote:
Let's get real; yeah you are – I was born at night, but not last night. But, that's ok; maybe you just got to cut your own path for awhile. So, keep looking for a better way and someday you'll re-cross the Church's trail and decide to let it guide you.
Good holiday, and peace to you, and yours.
Comments withdrawn – refer to post 196 “I've been trying to keep this discussion focused on Tradition vs. not-Tradition, rather than on Catholic vs. not-Catholic.” My comments were related to this latter group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
JoeT
Show me where the book of Revelation says there are "ONLY 12".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Why'd you ignore the rest of post #179?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No. Anytime you want to debate anything you think is an addition to Scripture, start a thread. I'll be glad to educate you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
It is actually you who does that all the time. Like for instance, in this thread saying that Jesus appointed St. Paul in place of Judas. That is an addition to Scripture.Quote:
and contradicting things which are found in scripture.
Nope. Those books were in the Catholic Scriptures from the time of Jesus who used the Septuagint Old Testament which included them. It was Luther who took them out.Quote:
The Catholic church did add books to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent.
However, that's not even the subject of the thread. Do you take every opportunity to attack the Catholic Church?
That's fine. I've been trying to keep this discussion focused on Tradition vs. not-Tradition, rather than on Catholic vs. not-Catholic. Since Catholics aren't the only Christians who look to Tradition (there are more than half a billion Eastern Orthodox, for example), I've tried where possible to give a kind of bland conception of it so that it isn't too narrowly focused on the Catholic Church. And my questions regarding the NT canon were framed in terms of the first and second centuries in part to try to keep this thread from turning into a re-hash of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation: Trent good vs. Trent bad. That argument has been had in this forum a number of times and, frankly, I find that many of the exchanges quickly become distasteful. If we look to the early years of Christianity, when the NT canon was coming into being, I think we are better situated to set to one side the standard move-and-counter-move that plays itself out over and over when Trent comes up. (I'm not trying to duck anything here; I think it's an interesting conversation well worth having, I just wanted to stay focused on something from a different historical period in the hope that it would focus attention on what I, at least, regard as the over-arching question.) But I am just the humble OP, not the master of this thread, so I'll let the conversation evolve as it will... as it always does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I've been trying to put some pressure on different views, in order to get a better sense how those views actually play out once the slogans are set to one side. I hope I haven't been heavy-handed about this.
De Maria,
I thank you for your efforts to keep us on-topic.
Really, much appreciated.
Talaniman,
I get the impression from your posts--and it's just an impression, I don't mean to put words in your mouth--that you are sensitive to the historical conditions surrounding the production and canonization of both the Bible and Tradition. I wonder if you would be willing say a few words about how you see the relationship between the Bible and Tradition, on the one hand, and those historical conditions that you find to be salient, on the other.
Feel free to beg-off if you don't feel like giving a history lesson, though!
Thanks,Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Merry Christmas
JoeT
That's OK. I once had many disagreements with the Catholic Church myself. I'll give my understanding just as fyi, there is of course no obligation to believe it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
First, we remember that Jesus named Simon, Cephas, meaning Rock in Aramaic. Not little rock or any other such thing. So, when we get to Matt 16, we know that the reason Matt says, "Petros" is because it is the masculine form of the word for Rock. Not to demean Simon in anyway.
So, Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Who is the Rock?
1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)
Christ is the Rock!
And the Rock turned to Simon and said, "YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock will build my Church"
So God gave Simon the name that represents God.
2 Kings 22 2 And he said: The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour.
Why? Because Simon now represents God before men.
Therefore Jesus also gave Him the keys to the Kingdom:
Matthew 16 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Has, God ever done this before? Yes. He did it with Moses:
Is Moses God? Of course not. But what did God say?
Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Why did God call Moses God? Because He appointed Moses as His representative before Pharoa and the people:
Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.
As for the Apocrypha, Jesus used the Septuagint form of the Bible, which was confirmed by the Early Church in many councils.
Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
The Canon of the Bible
Thanks for the question.
Sincerely,
De Maria
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:49 AM. |