Appeal to Tradition?

[Dlee]

I liken tradition to the concept of academic research - which source is more credible - someone who witnessed the event or someone who studied the event 1500 years later. Or like the game of telephone. The further you get away from the original source or message, the possibility for misinformation or misinterpretation increases. This is where the tradition of the early church comes in.

 

[Gorgias]

Too late. I’ve come to rely on Bart Ehrman

That’s a shame. The watch-word of modern rationality is the claim to “open-mindedness”, which is applied as a bludgeon against theists, who are claimed to be “close-minded”. When unbelievers express closemindedness, are they held to the same standard?

The same logic applies to the first three Gospels.

So… if those who believe that Hannibal crossed the Alps on elephants write a history of the event, are we to therefore presume that he didn’t?

 

[FiveLinden]

That’s a shame. The watch-word of modern rationality is the claim to “open-mindedness”, which is applied as a bludgeon against theists, who are claimed to be “close-minded”. When unbelievers express closemindedness, are they held to the same standard?

I do not understand what you mean. Neither Ehrman not I accuse theists of being close-minded.

The same logic applies to the first three Gospels.

So… if those who believe that Hannibal crossed the Alps on elephants write a history of the event, are we to therefore presume that he didn’t?

I don’t get your point, though I have opened my mind in the attempt. Perhaps it fell out!

 

[Gorgias]

I do not understand what you mean. Neither Ehrman not I accuse theists of being close-minded.

Yet, you’ve expressed a certain close-mindedness in your perspective, no?

I don’t get your point, though I have opened my mind in the attempt. Perhaps it fell out!

LOL!

The point is that historical documents all express belief in the narratives they tell. So… if you disqualify historical documents from antiquity that are about Jesus – on the basis that they are expressions of belief in what they assert – then do you reject all historical documents from antiquity that belief what they assert?

 

[KMC]

A few of key points:

1. All Protestants hold to the Tradition of what books belong in the Bible. The very book they base that teaches what they believe about their very salvation is a collection of books, which are not listed in the Bible. It is ONLY through Tradition they have a Bible at all.
2. Any Protestant that has a KJV Bible, also holds to the Tradition that Martin Luther gets to decide which books are inspired and which books are not. 7 Books of the OT, found in the Septuagint (the version of Scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles), are NOT found in the KJV. This is for two reasons: first, Martin Luther, based on his judgment alone and not anything found in Scripture, took those 7 books and moved them to the appendix of his translation, and called them “apocrypha”. Secondly, Protestant Bible Societies in the 17-1800’s, stopped printing Bibles with those books, again based on their judgment alone, and not based on anything found in the Bible. Protestants, by this fact alone, are NOT Sola Scriptura. They are Sola Scriptura when its convenient to their position.
3. Any Protestant alive in the year 50AD, would not have a New Testament to reference. The source of their theology would have to be Tradition (aka “the oral gospel”). Would they have ignored the preaching of the gospels and just said “I’ll wait until it comes out in written form”?

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, not based on reason, and is an invention of the Reformation.

 

[FiveLinden]

if you disqualify historical documents from antiquity that are about Jesus – on the basis that they are expressions of belief in what they assert

But I don’t and I haven’t.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

if you disqualify historical documents from antiquity that are about Jesus – on the basis that they are expressions of belief in what they assert

But I don’t and I haven’t.

Ahh… but you do claim that they aren’t true in what they assert:

I think if I had information as dramatic as a human being God I might have actually said it in so many words. And your examples do not in any case say that Jesus is God

So… which is it? Are you saying that the historical documents aren’t reasonable evidence (which you claim they’re not), or are you saying that you “don’t and haven’t” asserted that claims of Jesus’ divinity aren’t reasonable (which, as it were, you have)?

 

[FiveLinden]

So… which is it? Are you saying that the historical documents aren’t reasonable evidence (which you claim they’re not), or are you saying that you “don’t and haven’t” asserted that claims of Jesus’ divinity aren’t reasonable (which, as it were, you have)?

I am saying that the first three Gospels do not clearly assert that Jesus is God. In this thread I have not made any assertions about this. I am talking about what the Gospels actually say and suggesting that if they did not say so clearly it seems to me unlikely that the authors of the first three Gospels were convinced of this.

 

[Bon_Croix]

A flat earth has nothing to due with Faith and Morals. The Pope’s infallibility has nothing to do with flat earth.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Let’s look at Confession. It evolved over time. It’s evolution was the result of the Church’s authority to evolve or change it. Jesus gave the Pope authority (this is tradition and scripture). Jesus created the sacrament (this is tradition and scripture). So, pulling one concept like the current way in which we are to go to Confession without taking into account the whole of Scripture and Tradition is dangerous.

 

[Gorgias]

I am saying that the first three Gospels do not clearly assert that Jesus is God.

See Brant Pitre’s “The Case for Jesus”. He makes a good case that refutes your claim. (In short, Jesus’ claims of divinity, which are present in the synoptic Gospels, would have been understood by His (Jewish) audience.)

I am talking about what the Gospels actually say and suggesting that if they did not say so clearly it seems to me unlikely that the authors of the first three Gospels were convinced of this.

That’s one opinion. Another would be that Jesus spoke in ways that would have been understood in the culture in which He spoke, and the authors understood that language and faithfully recorded it.

 

[Pal]

Romans 10-:9-10 or as peter said in acts confess and be saved