[Tj3]

Indeed, God is right. The question throughout the whole of the present thread, to which I'll ask you to speak as others have done, is: How do we know which human beings are right? How do we determine which is the right canon?

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.

[Akoue]

I don’t think there is any orthodox (little ‘o’) Doctors or Fathers who reject Tradition. (at least I don’t recall any). I don’t know much about the Eastern Rites, but I understand they have a similar patristic Tradition of Faith that seems to cross the East-West Divide. St. Thomas takes Tradition (big and little) as a matter of fact. The first time we see Tradition being challenged is with Martin Luther (c. 1518) and the Protestant schism.

JoeT

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.

[Akoue]

God is right.

You did not answer my question - show me where we can read the tradition so that we can verify what you are saying.

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.

[arcura]

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

[JoeT777]

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.

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.

JoeT

[Tj3]

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.

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.

[Akoue]

I never said anything about Paul not being an Apostle, so please ask first and don't assume. Paul was God's replacement for Judas.

Is this in Scripture? I recall Matthias being chosen to be Judas's replacement.

[Tj3]

When the bible mentions the 12 Jesus Chose they were the original 12 including Judas.
ANY apostles chosen thereafter were additionals.

The twelve limitation is in the book of Revelation - speaking about future events.

[Tj3]

Is this in Scripture? I recall Matthias being chosen to be Judas's replacement.

Endorsed by God as the replacement? Really? I don't remember reading that in scripture.

[JoeT777]

I was headed to bed some time ago. I'll continue in the morning work permitting

JoeT

[Akoue]

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.

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).

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.

[arcura]

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

[De Maria]

Interesting. So are you then rejecting oral tradition?

That is strange. Akoue is speaking of written tradition and you suggest that means "rejecting" oral tradition?

By no means. We accept the Word of God in any form presented by the Church. Oral Tradition is part of Sacred 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.

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:

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

[Tj3]

I took you to be referring to my earlier post, when I refered 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).

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?

[De Maria]

Endorsed by God as the replacement? Really? I don't remember reading that in scripture.

The Scriptures are God breathed and they tell us Matthias was chosen by lot.

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.

[Tj3]

The Scriptures are God breathed and they tell us Matthias was chosen by lot.

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?

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[JoeT777]

The twelve limitation is in the book of Revelation - speaking about future events.

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.

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

[De Maria]

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?

Proverbs 16:33
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.

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.

Scripture says that God chose Matthias to replace Judas:

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?

[De Maria]

Then if it is not written down, we do not know what is contained within that tradition,

Why? Do you not have ears to hear?

and if the written portion contradicts scripture and itself,

It doesn't.

then why should we trust the oral when we don't even know what it contains

You don't know what it contains. We do.

and when this is supposedly the source from which the contradictory written tradition was written?

It isn't contradictory.

Correction. It might contradict your opinions but it does not contradict itself or Scripture.