Tee-hee-hee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
|
Tee-hee-hee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Altenweg,
I'm glad you did not stay in the shadows.
Blushing is attractive and rare in today's culture.
I make you shine.
Merry Christmas
Fred
Warren H. Carroll took a fascinating stand in his book The History of Christendom, 1985 by Christendom Press; it seems the authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John are regularly questioned, he suggests a rather simple solution. These Gospels bear the name of eye witnesses; both Matthew and John were among the Twelve. However the Gospels of Mark and Luke are rarely questioned although they do not claim to have been eyewitnesses. Carroll argues that the probative eyewitness ought to be given weight.
For Catholics we could stop here with a reliance on tradition. Our tradition (small 't') holds that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were authored by the Apostles whose name they bare, and in the order listed here.
Even still, it's likely that these four Apostles chose to write because they were the most prolific of the Twelve. Matthew, the tax collector, would have been proficient in several languages and wrote first; his gospel was likely written in Aramaic and reputedly re-wrote it in Greek.
Biblical critics often suggest that Mark's gospel was written first. Such critics say that with strong parallels to Matthew it's likely that Matthew followed and is a fleshed version of Mark. Carroll points out the flawed logic by exposing the fact that Mark was a much simpler man, less educated; logically, he points out, simpler people write simpler gospels.
Luke seems to be somewhat of a mystery. Since there is such interment detail of the Virgin Mary, it's strongly suggested (citing ancient tradition) that he knew her personally.
And lastly the Gospel of John was written at the end of the first century A.D. It's suggested that St. John wrote his Gospel with the benefit of the synoptic Gospels. Being in his 90's at the when writing the Gospel, John seems to take a mystical approach with the passion of Christ and the ascension. I've heard traditions were St. John and the Virgin Mary lived in the same town in keeping with Christ's last command, “behold thy mother.” Still critics will argue that the Gospel John wasn't written by the son of Zebedee the fisherman. John 19:32-37 and John 21:20-24 both have passages of testimony similar to those heard of a witness in a court of law.
I'll leave the dates to Akoue
JoeT
Thanks, Joe, that's interesting. I do disagree with Mr. Carroll on one point, namely he order of composition of Mark and Matthew. It's true that Matthew was written first in Aramaic, and we know that Mark was written for a community of non-Aramaic speakers since it has to explain in Greek the meanings of Aramaic expressions. Left out is the famous Q, for Quelle, another postulated early Gospel lost to history. For my part, I think it perfectly possible that there may have been such a Gospel, though I think people sometimes appeal to this possibility in a somewhat profligate way. If there were a Q, an early but lost Gospel, it would likely have been lost very early indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
There is good reason to believe that the authors of Matt. And Luke had access to Mark when composing their Gospels. There are some discrepancies between John and the synoptics, which have long since been catalogued (Augustine and John Chrysostom mention them) and this suggests that John's Gospel didn't rely upon Mark in the way Matt. And Luke did. (They may have used it as a kind of template, which they in turn filled in and fleshed out. Which is a really good thing.) But I'm not sure what turns on this at the end of the day. Mark was written in Rome, the cosmopolitan heart of the ancient Mediterranean, and so it isn't all that surprising that it would have been quick to circulate. The other Gospels appear to have made the rounds rather more slowly.
JoeT777 and Akoue,
Thanks very much for that information.
It is extremely interesting and informative.
Merry Christ's mass,
Fred
Although one Catholic visionary, whose name escapes me, said that there was a disciple John, not the Apostle nor the Baptist, who took notes throughout Jesus' ministry, I'm inclined to believe that the Q is mnemonic. Remember, the ancients were much more skilled at memorizing events and speeches than are we. It was part of the Jewish tradition to pass down ORAL tradition. We pass down traditions which we've heard and written down. They didn't have that luxury. Writing was difficult, the materials were hard to come by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Sincerely,
De Maria
Silly question, but Catholic school was long ago. ;)
What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple? Sorry, probably a really stupid question, but I really would like to know.
My opinion on the meaning of Apostle & disciple:Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Apostle = from Greek apostello "to send forth"
Disciple = from Latin discipulus – implies a follower of an art or science and that there is an authority higher in that art e.g. a disciple is opposed to Christ as Master as a scholar is opposed to a teacher. The word disciple is sometimes used with the original Twelve.
As I understand it, the word Apostle is used, almost exclusively, for one of the original Twelve Disciples of Christ. In addition to this some, such as Paul, are called 'Apostle' because of a miraculously conversion. Rarely, an 'Apostle' can be some of those disciples of lesser status than original Twelve.
The way I make the distinction is that an apostle is a disciple sent out on a mission by the master. In the case of Scriptures, an 'Apostle' is one of the original Twelve, but of a larger group of disciples, sent to spread the Word by their Master, Christ.
JoeT
Thanks Joe, good info. :)
De Maria,
Like you, I'm inclined to think of Q as mnemonic as well. I'm not sure we should be out looking for a lost text, as some people seem to think. You are quite right: People forget how extraordinarily expensive books and the materials required for producing them were in the ancient world. Even after the advent of the printing press, a single copy of the Bible cost more than several castles.
Joe, Altenweg,
Yes, any student is a disciple, but not all disciples are "sent". In the NT, though, I don't see a particularly rigid distinction being made--unless one is talking about the Twelve, who clearly had a special status as both disciples and apostles.
Ps:
It's also important to remember how very low the literacy rate was in the ancient world. THe production of texts would be of little advantage to the average person. Most people, for most of our history, had access to Scripture only by listening to others read it aloud to them. Hence the orality of Tradition lived on long after the production of texts.
Akoue, et al:
It's agreed that not all disciples are "sent". I found myself in defense of using the term 'Apostle' for all four Gospel writers erlier today. While I was just parroting Carroll in my previous post, it occurred to me while responding to Altenweg that the four may rightly be called Apostles even though some may not have been in the group of twelve. We hold that the Gospels were written as an inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As such, the authors of the Gospels were being sent out, as it were, to write. Thus, the writers become disciples on a Divine mission and could rightly be called Apostles (with a capital 'A'); regardless of whether they belong to the group of Twelve. I'm just thinking out loud here, and didn't mean for this to be a diversion.
Not that I have the wherewithal to speak with any authority, but I've always had an aversion to the Q. My first encounter with the Q was when “hippieism” seemed to use it as ammunition against Christians; in the late 60's and 70's. (I told my age! – actually I was very young – yeah like, would you believe 5-years old – OK how about 10-year old, OK …?) Consequently, I've built a prejudice against the concept of a Q. Unfortunately, that prejudice isn't built on any factual knowledge – Q just seems counter intuitive. Even still, it would seem that the similarities in certain passages are well beyond chance. To resolve this conflict, I've come to hold a view similar to DeMiria's; there must have been a “Protogospel” in the tradition of oral teaching.
Uhmm, there's that word 'tradtion' again - Do you thing a body of believes, organized, and deliberately set out to write the Good News to “hand down” to the next generation – Christians didn't last long; you do know that Christians were “shot on site”, in a manner of speaking …. Nah too coincidental
JoeT
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I have seen your claims, but I am asking where scripture says that there were more than 12 Apostles.
Please answer that question.
Keep in mind:
- There were 12 Apostles, and then Judas was gone, leaving 11.
- We are told that there are only 12 Apostles (and only will be 12 Apostles), therefore only one could be added to replace Judas.
- Therefore only one of Matthias or Paul can be the God chosen replacement.
- There is no evidence that God chose Matthias to be an Apostle.
- Paul was clearly and specifically chosen by God, as were the other 11.
I know that the other Apostles chose him. I am asking where scripture says that He was God's choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
You count different than I do.Quote:
and St. Paul as Apostles.
Romans 11:13
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
That makes fourteen.
This is specific with respect to Judas, and does not refer to Apostolic succession as a doctrine. Further, have a gander at what the Apostles said were the qualifications. One would have to be 2000 years old today to qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Sorry, Tom, that ship has sailed. If you want to argue about this please go to the thread I dedicated to the subject. This thread is about SCripture and Tradition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Akoue,
Comments were made addressed to me regarding this. I am responding. If the folk do not wish to discuss further, that is fine, they do not need to respond.
Odd, though that you chose to question my posts - I have seen mighty little discussion on scripture and tradition in the last couple of pages.
Joe,
I get your reservations. Being backed into a corner can turn anybody off. I think it would be eminently cool if a Q-Gospel were to turn up one day, but I don't really see what ahngs on it. This is why I find people's frequent appeal to it undermotivated.
Nope, just people being nice to one another. That's always healthy for conversation, though. And I, and I'm sure many others, would be delighted to discuss the number of Apostles with you--just please take it up on the other thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
That is why I frequently recommend that discussions be kept respectful. No name-calling, abuse, etc. that we see far too much of on boards like this. Likewise, respect for what others on the list are discussing is importaant, without one person unilaterally assuming authority to choose who is allowed to discuss what, and specifically suggesting that the rights of some to discuss differ from the rights of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
All you need to do is just not discuss it or the discussing of discussing it and it will go away. I am not sure why, if you don't want it discussed, why you keep discussing the discussing of the topic.Quote:
And I, and I'm sure many others, would be delighted to discuss the number of Apostles with you--just please take it up on the other thread.
After all, I was just responding to someone else's comment. And you for some reason did not comment on that. You just don't seem to want me responding to the subtopics raised by others. But I don't care - if no one else comments, it goes away. If you keep commenting, it keeps going.
So, your choice - we can keep discussing this, or you can let it drop.
Just curious, since tradition is often passed from generations down, simply as said, because of illiteracy, or lack of material, but doesn't it seem odd that all the modern traditions, are from ancient man, with no more updates, or added knowledge. Is it that the traditions of ancient man is enough, or there is no more divine writing for scripture? It would seem technology would inspire man to more, not just stop in the middle ages.
This used to bug me too--I'm not really sure when it stopped, or why. I don't think the idea is meant to be that Tradition exists only because of illiteracy or poverty, etc.: It is understood to be a living thing. But it's a living thing that *preserves* what was delivered over to it by Jesus and the Apostles. There is a real tendency to worry about innovation, since this could lead to deformation of what was handed over in the first place. For this reason, new theological insights or ideas have to be tested against what has always been held to be true, to see if they are in harmony with each other. If they are, then that's a good sign for the new insight or idea; if they don't, well, not so good. This is why something like Vatican II stumps a lot of people: It sure looks new to them, and they wonder if it's supposed to replace what came earlier. Of course it's not: It's more like a refresher, a re-appropriation of what came before in the face of a changed world and changed circumstances. But Tradition isn't typically held to be un-dynamic: Through it the unfolding of revelation continues to this day, not because revelation shanges but because we do. That said, what is ancient, and so tested, always has an especially high standing.
I hope this makes sense, at least a little. If not, please say so and I'll have another crack at it.
Sorry, another ps:
If you have some time, you might want to re-read some of De Maria's earlier posts. He's explained the idea really nicely (better than I just did, but oh well).
Assuming we're talking about Church Tradition, it didn't start in the middle ages. The Church's tradition starts at the ascension of Christ (some Traditions start even earlier). More important is that this Tradition deals with Devine Truth, wherein nothing can be added or subtracted; truth is immutable - truth of any kind. I sometimes think of it this way; It’s like trying to add something new to the sum of 2+2; done right, it always comes out to 4; this is an axiomatic truth of mathematics. Adding or subtracting anything would simply make the answer wrong. But, this concept of math (or Divine Truth) needs to be handed down or taught, as it were, to the next generation. If we don’t, we’d have a bunch of math illiterate kids who are always trying to convince Dad that last week’s allowance of $2 plus this week’s allowance of $2 equals $5 (fork it over Dad!). It just anin’t going to happen is it? Even though I might fail at humor, I hope I didn’t fail at answering your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
JoeT
Joe,
I liked that. Something I should have said more clearly is that Tradition is understood to be both the deposit of faith that is preserved and the mechanism (I can't think of a better word for it right now) by which that deposit, that body of teachings, is transmitted. De Maria brought this out nicely in an earlier post by emphasizing the important connection between the body of doctrine and the ecclesial structure that preserves and transmits it. If all anybody had was the body of doctrine, without a viable mechanism for its transmission, the body of doctrine would be lost directly.
There is also the idea, which I know you've brought up, that the Holy Spirit is taken to guide this transmission. Something like this would seem to be imperative if Tradition is to be anything over and above tradition.
Sort of but not quite. To me, Tradition for any church body is composed of handed-down stories that start as factual (and may become embellished during the handing down), are rituals that arise in the interest of organizing and consolidating the community of believers, and are adaptations of teaching in order to make a doctrine or belief more palatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
For instance, I read a book years ago about Christian missionaries who went into a hot, deserty country. The natives worshipped the sun. The missionaries took that ball and ran with it as they introduced their God as the Trinity, one of which is the Son. The natives eagerly embraced this new "Sun." Also, I have always been taught that the early Christian church introduced the veneration of saints in order to extinguish belief in polytheism. The Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible, but was added later as a doctrine and became part of Tradition in the Catholic and Eastern churches.
So are you saying that Catholic priests and nuns will someday be allowed to marry and that the Catholic Church will embrace homosexuals and perform their marriages? Society has changed regarding the first, and is slowly changing to accept the second.Quote:
Through it the unfolding of revelation continues to this day, not because revelation shanges but because we do.
I was thinking the same thing about your response. I didn't say a word about the mechanics of it all. Well, at least between the two answers he gets keep both the how and the why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
JoeT
Yeah, there are lots of traditions of the sort you describe here. In the capital "T" sense, these don't count as Tradition; some are even customs that are reproved. One of the things Catholics and Orthodox worry a lot about is trying to ensure that traditions don't get confused with Tradition. This is one of the important roles played by bishops (preserving the capital "T" deposit of faith in the face of people who have developed all kinds of traditions over the years). When those traditions are seen as helpful, as deepening the faith of the people, they are typically permitted to continue; when they cut against Tradition, they are suppressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
As for clerical celibacy and gay marriage... I don't know. There are things which, if the Church permitted them, I would be delighted to see. But it's not for me to decide--and even though my ego would love it if I could make the call, it's probably a very good thing that I'm neither the Pope nor a council of bishops! (I look terrible in hats, for instance.)
I asked a question similar to yours of De Maria and he offered what I thought was a really helpful reply at #35 above. If you have a minute you might take a glance at it and see what you think.
#35 was written by arcura.
Yes, it was. I'm sorry about that. I meant to say #32. #38 is good to (same page).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Numbers and I do not get along!
Which reminds me: Joe, you going to send that twenty back my way?
Lol, you would be hard pressed to find kids, and they can add and know the value of money, to look at 2 + 2 = 4, and not press you to make it 10 + 10 = 20, as dad, 4 bucks ain't gonna cut it. but the analogy is well taken, but my point being that man has acquired even more knowledge to work with than ancient man, and knowledge changes perspectives, and traditions, when new, and better ways of doing things presents itself. As we add knowledge, and close the gaps between tribes, and churches, do we not change tradition also??Quote:
we'd have a bunch of math illiterate kids who are always trying to convince Dad that last week's allowance of $2 plus this week's allowance of $2 equals $5 (fork it over Dad!). It just anin't going to happen is it
What we may change is our relation to Tradition. By this I mean that we may come to understand it better, more deeply. If we develop traditions that don't serve that end, then it is our duty to correct those traditions. We have to be vigilant with ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So traditions chage, but Tradition doesn't.
Does Tradition ever change, or has it ever in the past? Have any ever been added to or discarded?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Not in the big "T" sense of Tradition, no. But in the small "t" sense, yes, lots of traditions have changed. Some of those small "t" traditions are bad, bad, bad, and have been suppressed because of it. (Bishops in the Philippines have been trying for years to get people to stop nailing themselves to crosses on Good Friday, for example. NOT a good tradition.)
De Mariia,
I agree with you on that.
Fred
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You've applied a subjective meaning to 'Tradition,' especially as it may relate to the Christian Church. There can be a tradition of tales and fables we teach our children which are handed down. The fables may contain fact, they may not. In the Christian Church, Tradition is the handing down of Divine Truth. Something that can't be changed; I know you've read were I've said that Truth is God and God is Truth; both immutable and absolute. These are the types of Truth we've been discussing – they simply can't change. However, as Akoue pointed out, we may, for extremely long periods, hold such truths without formulating them in doctrine.
Another concept that may be perplexing is that Church rites and ecclesiastical customs get confused with the fundamental Truths (Traditions) of our faith. That one Diocese may say Mass for St. Christopher on a certain date is a matter of custom not Church Tradition; the main reason is that it doesn't affect the fundamental Truth of our faith.
The recounting of this story is a distortion of the intent of the priests. These stories get around a lot in the non-Catholic circles as propaganda against the Church to somehow show that the Church doesn't teach the God's Truth. I don't know this particular story, but as you've portrayed it here, the priests were simply trying to find a way to “relate” to the natives who have no concept of God other than as the sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I'm not going to touch the Mary Assumption topic here. We've done it before, but if you want, open another thread and we'll discuss it again.
To the first, celibate priests is a matter of discipline. Priests don't marry because the Pope has decreed that they can't serve two masters, God and woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Second, homosexuality is in conflict with God's revelation (Divine Truth – remember). The Pope can't remove this sanction because it would be an error - the Church doesn't teach error and it doesn't formally cooperate with error. And obviously if homosexuality is in conflict with God's revelations then the marriage of same sex persons can't happen either.
Society might change, Truth is immutable.
JoeT
But haven't some of the Traditions come about quite recently -- the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950? If they are dogma, why did it take so long for anyone to figure them out -- or is there more to it than that? And why isn't Mary's mother sinless, and her mother, and her mother, all the way back to Eve? Why stop with Mary? (Yes, I know. That's another whole topic and is just a rhetorical question here.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Leaving the rhetorical part ot one side: To say that a doctrine was defined in 1950 or 1854 isn't to say that it wasn't around previously. In fact, a dogma cannot be defined ex cathedra if at hasn't been around a long time. So, without getting into the details of the two cases you mention (another thread, maybe), the ex cathedra definition of a dogma is not to be a theological innovation. These pronouncements are, as it were, the clear and public declaration of what has been believed (not: what is henceforth to be believed).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Yeah I know about the 20 bucks deal - I call it KIDflation!Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Whether the knowledge is great or small, if it is rooted in “truth” then we view this as God's will. I think what you're suggesting is that we make truth subjective, in the sense that it serves our will, our idea of a predetermined outcome. At this point truth no longer is matter of fact, an immutable truth. If the knowledge we gain today wasn't true at the dawn of time – and then it can't be true today. However, our relationships with tribes, churches, etc. in light of that Truth can change but (big T) Tradition cannot.
JoeT
Akoue,
That is s very good explanation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:30 AM. |