Are all the teachings of Sacred Tradition contained within the Bible?

[novaslasher]

According to my theology professor, there is a debate in Catholic theology circles about whether all of the teachings that comprise Sacred Tradition are found at least implicitly in Sacred Scripture (the oral component of Tradition preserves the interpretation of the teaching within the Magisterium).

My first reaction is that Tradition has some teachings distinct from Scripture. The primary one being that the canon of Scripture isn’t contained within Scripture itself. There are also some unique teachings that have some justification in Scripture, but seem to be quite vague. For instance, the teaching of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not referenced directly in Scripture although there is strong evidence that the early church did not believe Mary’s body to still be here on Earth (no claims to her relics, some statements by the Church Fathers).

However in the case of the canon, one could say that this is not a teaching of apostolic Tradition or Sacred Scripture. The state of the New Testament canon was in flux for hundreds of years after the deaths of the Apostles. The Catholic Encyclopedia quotes that, “The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history.” This doesn’t mean that we should doubt the canon (which was fully formalized at Trent), but that it derives its canonical assurance from the Magisterium.

The Assumption seems more problematical for believing that Tradition and Scripture contain the same teachings. There is no explicit teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, although there are some passages that support the possibility of an assumption in reference to other saints (Matthew 27:52–53).

I tend to believe that Tradition and Scripture have some distinct teachings (explicitly, the case of the Assumption). We can’t know for sure though since the nature of Sacred Tradition is oral, and its content is preserved within the teachings of the magisterium, the interpretations of scripture given by the magisterium, and the mass.

Can anyone think of unique teachings of Tradition seperate from Scripture (but obviously not opposed to Scripture)?

 

[bbentrup]

Catholic Encyclopedia, Tradition and Living Magisterium says:

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings? Must it be admitted that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men? The Protestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith: by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority. Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere.

 

[tobinatorstark]

sacred tradition cannot contradict scripture. Sacred tradition goes hand and hand with scripture. In the Trinity, wherever the Father is so is the Son and Holy Spirit. The same is true for Scripture. Wherever there is scripture there is sacred tradition and magisterial teaching. One cannot subside without the others

 

[chaunceygardner]

sacred tradition cannot contradict scripture. Sacred tradition goes hand and hand with scripture. In the Trinity, wherever the Father is so is the Son and Holy Spirit. The same is true for Scripture. Wherever there is scripture there is sacred tradition and magisterial teaching. One cannot subside without the others

The question was not about tradition contradicting scripture. It was whether all teachings are contained within scripture. The answer is clearly no, since the Church claims authority from Traditions handed down from the Apostles and from Divine Revelation, as stated in the quote that* bbentrup *so kindly provided. The teachings not specifically taken from scripture can often be based on what scripture says (or doesn’t say), or what it implies. But not all.

I am not quite sure what the debate is about, since the question can be readily answered through a comparison of doctrine and scripture.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The question was not about tradition contradicting scripture. It was whether all teachings are contained within scripture. The answer is clearly no, since the Church claims authority from Traditions handed down from the Apostles and from Divine Revelation, as stated in the quote that* bbentrup *so kindly provided. The teachings not specifically taken from scripture can often be based on what scripture says (or doesn’t say), or what it implies. But not all.

I am not quite sure what the debate is about, since the question can be readily answered through a comparison of doctrine and scripture.

You mustn’t have literalist interpretation of scripture or else you will contradict yourself on several grounds. It is ok and perfectly acceptable to take scripture in literal sense, but not a literalist sense. This leads to man made traditions of Protestants (of men not Christ) such as alter calls contrary to scripture

 

[chaunceygardner]

You mustn’t have literalist interpretation of scripture or else you will contradict yourself on several grounds. It is ok and perfectly acceptable to take scripture in literal sense, but not a literalist sense. This leads to man made traditions of Protestants (of men not Christ) such as alter calls contrary to scripture

I apologize for my obtuseness, but I am confused about what you are saying about what I said. Isn’t one of the major building blocks of Catholicism the reliance on Tradition and Revelation in addition to Scripture? What contradictions are you referring to?

Thanks for helping make it clear.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I apologize for my obtuseness, but I am confused about what you are saying about what I said. Isn’t one of the major building blocks of Catholicism the reliance on Tradition and Revelation in addition to Scripture? What contradictions are you referring to?

Thanks for helping make it clear.

Chauncey,

there is no need to apologize. What I am referring to is that some people take one thing and see that it says that so it absoultely has to mean that. Scripture is taken literally, which I am sure you do take it literally. I personally don’t think there is any contradictions between scripture or tradition. That is tradition of Christ as you know that tradition of man doesn’t mean jack. In contradictions I do mean that some people people take the Bible in literalist sense that misinterpret its mean and give it a falshood meaning like when it it mentioned the Apostle James as brethren of the Lord. This doesn’t mean that the Apostle James was his blood brother, but the apostle James was related to the Lord by via distant cousin. Aramaic (the Language the Lord spoke) doesn’t have a word for cousin or kinship. The Gospel of Matthew is another example. It too was written in Aramaic. Peter’s name is translated into rock. Taking the context of a word is sometimes half the battle. As in cousin, brother was translated because it meant close relative. I hope I have answered your question

 

[novaslasher]

The question was not about tradition contradicting scripture. It was whether all teachings are contained within scripture.

Yes, this is what I was intending to ask the forum.

I am not quite sure what the debate is about, since the question can be readily answered through a comparison of doctrine and scripture.

The issue is not Scripture vs. Tradition. The debate presupposes that oral Tradition is a valid organ of Catholic faith and teaching. What it is asking, is whether a kernel of all Catholic teachings are present in Scripture or whether there are some unique teachings in Tradition. As to what constitutes a kernel is a valid question.

My professor recommended a book in our theology library that laid out the debate from both sides (which I read). I’m not sure which side of the debate is the minority view, but I’d bet that most orthodox Catholics hold that there are unique teachings found exlusively in Tradition. This is part of what I wanted to find out in this post (reason behind the poll). As far as I know, this particular debate isn’t arguing for or against a “de Fide” dogma of the faith since the debate assumes that Tradition is valid and that it does provide the interpretation of Scripture needed to formulate correct teaching and protects the Church from falling into error regarding interpretation of Scripture.

 

[MetalMark]

All teachings are at least implied in scripture. Tradition and scripture are at equal level and cannot be separated.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Theoretically, so long as Tradition does not contradict Scripture it is possible that Tradition could provide doctrine that Scripture never brought up. Permit me to suggest a very bad example.

Scripture does not mention the planet Jupiter. Suppose an angel was chatting with St. Paul and St. Barnabas and told them that well he had to be on his way because he was expected at the waystation on Jupiter for supper. This was handed down as Tradition and it became doctrine that angels have a waystation on Jupiter. Not one kernel of any such thing can be found in Scripture, nor does it in anyway contradict Scripture, so it’s okay.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Yes, this is what I was intending to ask the forum.

The issue is not Scripture vs. Tradition. The debate presupposes that oral Tradition is a valid organ of Catholic faith and teaching. What it is asking, is whether a kernel of all Catholic teachings are present in Scripture or whether there are some unique teachings in Tradition. As to what constitutes a kernel is a valid question.

My professor recommended a book in our theology library that laid out the debate from both sides (which I read). I’m not sure which side of the debate is the minority view, but I’d bet that most orthodox Catholics hold that there are unique teachings found exlusively in Tradition. This is part of what I wanted to find out in this post (reason behind the poll). As far as I know, this particular debate isn’t arguing for or against a “de Fide” dogma of the faith since the debate assumes that Tradition is valid and that it does provide the interpretation of Scripture needed to formulate correct teaching and protects the Church from falling into error regarding interpretation of Scripture.

Then I think the answer is that all teaching has some basis in scripture. Any doctrine, encyclical, or portion of the catechism that you look at will have references to scripture. They may not directly address the topic but will have some bearing on it. The doctrine may not have a direct scriptural connection, but the Church does provide support for it with scripture. Keep in mind, however, that sometimes the scriptural passages are open to interpretation and everyone may not agree on what they mean.

I was just reading a recent Church document on the fate of the unborn and unbaptized. The conclusion was that the Church can not come up with a definitive doctrine on what exactly happens to the souls of the unborn, because it is not directly addressed in scripture, and certain bible passages that one could use to determine the answer are contradictory (God’s intent to save all vs. the need to be Baptized). And their study of Church history on the subject revealed a shifting sea of ideas and positions.

That is an example of a Church doctrine that scripture does not provide an answer for, and for which the Church must rely on Tradition and interpretation to come up with a teaching.

“tobinatorstark” said that for some people “Scripture is taken literally, which I am sure you do take it literally”.

Actually, I don’t. If I did, I would go crazy, since there are contradictory verses and passages, as well as many parts that are open to interpretation. I think of it as a big puzzle, and the more pieces we can put together, the better we will see and know God.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Then I think the answer is that all teaching has some basis in scripture. Any doctrine, encyclical, or portion of the catechism that you look at will have references to scripture. They may not directly address the topic but will have some bearing on it. The doctrine may not have a direct scriptural connection, but the Church does provide support for it with scripture. Keep in mind, however, that sometimes the scriptural passages are open to interpretation and everyone may not agree on what they mean.

I was just reading a recent Church document on the fate of the unborn and unbaptized. The conclusion was that the Church can not come up with a definitive doctrine on what exactly happens to the souls of the unborn, because it is not directly addressed in scripture, and certain bible passages that one could use to determine the answer are contradictory (God’s intent to save all vs. the need to be Baptized). And their study of Church history on the subject revealed a shifting sea of ideas and positions.

That is an example of a Church doctrine that scripture does not provide an answer for, and for which the Church must rely on Tradition and interpretation to come up with a teaching.

“tobinatorstark” said that for some people “Scripture is taken literally, which I am sure you do take it literally”.

Actually, I don’t. If I did, I would go crazy, since there are contradictory verses and passages, as well as many parts that are open to interpretation. I think of it as a big puzzle, and the more pieces we can put together, the better we will see and know God.

Can you provide those verses that are contradictory to other verses? In 2 Peter 1:20 it states Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. Please define why you think scripture is to open to interpretation

Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church. If you don’t take scripture literally then what do you take it?? I for one believe that Adam and Eve are our first parents and that God created them. They were the first humans. I do also believe in that there are some symbolism and some allegory in the Bible as well. I also believe that the flood actually happened during Noah’s time

 

[novaslasher]

Theoretically, you could solve the debate by doing what a previous poster suggested: lay out all the doctrinal teachings and compare them to Scripture. Then look for differences in dogmatic teachings and attribute those differences to unique Traditions. Practically, this is a tall order even though the Catechism and some reference works (such as Ludwig Ott’s Catholic Dogma book) do reference Scripture directly in relation to specific doctrines. Also, it is problematic in determining what level of Scriptural support constitutes a teaching of Tradition. For example, does the quote in Matthew 27:52–53 constitute a minimal implied teaching on the Assumption?

The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many

I’m not sure it does, although this is a matter of opinion. Therefore, I don’t think it is a cut and dried answer that all teaching of Tradition are at least implied in Scripture due to the ambiguity of defining what level of inference is needed in Scripture to support a teaching of Tradition.

I was just reading a recent Church document on the fate of the unborn and unbaptized. The conclusion was that the Church can not come up with a definitive doctrine on what exactly happens to the souls of the unborn, because it is not directly addressed in scripture, and certain bible passages that one could use to determine the answer are contradictory (God’s intent to save all vs. the need to be Baptized). And their study of Church history on the subject revealed a shifting sea of ideas and positions.

Limbo of the children is an interesting problem. There doesn’t seem to be any reference to it in Scripture, but neither has the church defined it formally. It’s difficult to know if it is a teaching of Tradition. The Church is resistant to defining it despite the millenia of controversy on the issue (implying it is not an apostolic Tradition), yet the pre-Augustinian Fathers did not teach that Original Sin in and of itself was enough to merit a punishment more than loss of the beatific vision (implying there might be a basis for a teaching of Tradition). Perhaps the answer is that Limbo is a theological speculation and simply not commented on in either Scripture or Tradition.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Can you provide those verses that are contradictory to other verses? In 2 Peter 1:20 it states Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. Please define why you think scripture is to open to interpretation.

The Church itself interprets scripture, and defines doctrine based on these interpretations and Tradition. And to say that there is no private interpretation does not coincide with the fact much of the early doctrines were developed from the interpretations of different people, which were then gathered and formed into official doctrine. Who are we to say that the Holy Spirit cannot speak through someone of its choosing? I would never presume to tell God through whom He is allowed to deliver his messages!

Anyway, Re: Contradictory scripture passages. I will limit my examples to the NT. Some of the differences are not critical, some are important in conveying the message that the writer wanted to make, and others could be important to theology and doctrine. You can find discussion on all of this and much more in many books written by bible scholars of many faiths, including Catholics. Let’s start at the beginning.

In Matthew, the Holy Family lived in Bethlehem; there was no inn or manger. In Luke, they traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem and Jesus was born in a manger.

(There is no birth story in Mark or John. To Mark, Jesus was not God from the beginning, but was chosen by God. So his manner of birth was not important. John is the only Gospel that indicates that Jesus was ALWAYS God, so a miracle birth story was also not necessary.)

Matthew – wise men and the slaughter of the innocents; no shepherds.
Luke - shepherds, but no wise men and no slaughter (there doesn’t appear to be any historical record of such an event, anyway).
Matthew – the Holy Family escapes from Herod by traveling to Egypt. They later return to settle in Nazareth in Galilee, because of the danger.
Luke – Mary and Joseph take Jesus to the Temple to be circumcised, meet Anna and Simeon, and then return to their home in Nazareth. No trip to Egypt. No danger.

When Jesus meets the Baptist in the three Synoptic Gospels, the voice of God says different things in each, and the words appear to be directed at different audiences (crowd, John or Jesus?).

After Jesus’ baptism (which doesn’t even occur in the Gospel of John), where does Jesus go? In the synoptic gospels, He goes into the desert (wilderness); in John he is gathering disciples.

When does Jesus cleanse the Temple in Jerusalem? At the beginning of his ministry (as John says) or near the end (Mark)? How long was His ministry? Mark’s gospel does not give a definite time, but it appears to be just one year. John implies three years, due to three Passovers in his Gospel.

In John’s Gospel there is no Last Supper and no institution of the Eucharist; instead, Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, which He doesn’t do in the other Gospels. There is then a long discourse, running several chapters, in which Jesus teaches his disciples, which is not in the other three Gospels.

The Passion of Jesus is where there are a lot of differences. Here are some:
In Mark, Jesus speaks three words to Pilate. Jesus, Pilate and Jewish leaders are all together.
In John, the Jewish leaders remain on the outside, Jesus inside, and Pilate moves between them. There is a long conversation between Jesus and Pilate. Is Jesus flogged just before He is crucified (Mark), or in the middle of His time with Pilate (John)?

In the gospels that talk about Judas, there are varying reasons for his betrayal of Jesus, and different things that happen after, including how Judas dies.

Who came to the tomb on the third day? Mary of Magdala, two Mary’s, two Mary’s and Salome, or several women? Each Gospel tells it differently.

Who did the women see at the tomb?
An angel, a young man, two men, no one? Again, each Gospel is different.

And the women were told different things, and the disciples then did different things, depending on which Gospel you read.

That is just some of it. In the letters of Paul and Acts there are many, many disagreements. An obvious one is that Acts says that Paul immediately went from Damascus to Jerusalem and met with the Apostles. Paul himself (in Galatians) says that he went other places first and didn’t get to Jerusalem for three years, and then met with only Peter and James (“the brother of our Lord”)! Who is right? You would think Paul knew what he did and when he did it.

The point is that we cannot read the NT as if every word and event is exactly true. Most of it is not meant to be history, but teaching lessons, with specific messages to convey. No one immediately recorded what Jesus said or did. This was all written down decades after, and with different audiences in mind. Some of it, like many of Paul’s letters, was written for a specific church, not for all believers. Some of it was written for Jewish Christians, some for Gentiles.

I don’t think we should get hung-up on whether the bible should be read literally or not. That is not what is truly important. If we spend too much time on it (as I just have), then we may miss the over-riding messages contained in the NT, and the real meaning of the Gospels. We become more like the Pharisees and Scholars of the Law, instead of the disciples that we should strive to be.

And I must respectfully disagree with you about Adam and Eve, and the flood. In fact, since the Catholic Church itself accepts that much of Genesis is allegorical, your view could be considered a personal interpretation. Best be careful there.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The Church itself interprets scripture, and defines doctrine based on these interpretations and Tradition. And to say that there is no private interpretation does not coincide with the fact much of the early doctrines were developed from the interpretations of different people, which were then gathered and formed into official doctrine. Who are we to say that the Holy Spirit cannot speak through someone of its choosing? I would never presume to tell God through whom He is allowed to deliver his messages!

Anyway, Re: Contradictory scripture passages. I will limit my examples to the NT. Some of the differences are not critical, some are important in conveying the message that the writer wanted to make, and others could be important to theology and doctrine. You can find discussion on all of this and much more in many books written by bible scholars of many faiths, including Catholics. Let’s start at the beginning.

In Matthew, the Holy Family lived in Bethlehem; there was no inn or manger. In Luke, they traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem and Jesus was born in a manger.

(There is no birth story in Mark or John. To Mark, Jesus was not God from the beginning, but was chosen by God. So his manner of birth was not important. John is the only Gospel that indicates that Jesus was ALWAYS God, so a miracle birth story was also not necessary.)

Matthew – wise men and the slaughter of the innocents; no shepherds.
Luke - shepherds, but no wise men and no slaughter (there doesn’t appear to be any historical record of such an event, anyway).
Matthew – the Holy Family escapes from Herod by traveling to Egypt. They later return to settle in Nazareth in Galilee, because of the danger.
Luke – Mary and Joseph take Jesus to the Temple to be circumcised, meet Anna and Simeon, and then return to their home in Nazareth. No trip to Egypt. No danger.

When Jesus meets the Baptist in the three Synoptic Gospels, the voice of God says different things in each, and the words appear to be directed at different audiences (crowd, John or Jesus?).

After Jesus’ baptism (which doesn’t even occur in the Gospel of John), where does Jesus go? In the synoptic gospels, He goes into the desert (wilderness); in John he is gathering disciples.

When does Jesus cleanse the Temple in Jerusalem? At the beginning of his ministry (as John says) or near the end (Mark)? How long was His ministry? Mark’s gospel does not give a definite time, but it appears to be just one year. John implies three years, due to three Passovers in his Gospel.

In John’s Gospel there is no Last Supper and no institution of the Eucharist; instead, Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, which He doesn’t do in the other Gospels. There is then a long discourse, running several chapters, in which Jesus teaches his disciples, which is not in the other three Gospels.

The Passion of Jesus is where there are a lot of differences. Here are some:
In Mark, Jesus speaks three words to Pilate. Jesus, Pilate and Jewish leaders are all together.
In John, the Jewish leaders remain on the outside, Jesus inside, and Pilate moves between them. There is a long conversation between Jesus and Pilate. Is Jesus flogged just before He is crucified (Mark), or in the middle of His time with Pilate (John)?

In the gospels that talk about Judas, there are varying reasons for his betrayal of Jesus, and different things that happen after, including how Judas dies.

Who came to the tomb on the third day? Mary of Magdala, two Mary’s, two Mary’s and Salome, or several women? Each Gospel tells it differently.

Who did the women see at the tomb?
An angel, a young man, two men, no one? Again, each Gospel is different.

And the women were told different things, and the disciples then did different things, depending on which Gospel you read.

That is just some of it. In the letters of Paul and Acts there are many, many disagreements. An obvious one is that Acts says that Paul immediately went from Damascus to Jerusalem and met with the Apostles. Paul himself (in Galatians) says that he went other places first and didn’t get to Jerusalem for three years, and then met with only Peter and James (“the brother of our Lord”)! Who is right? You would think Paul knew what he did and when he did it.

The point is that we cannot read the NT as if every word and event is exactly true. Most of it is not meant to be history, but teaching lessons, with specific messages to convey. No one immediately recorded what Jesus said or did. This was all written down decades after, and with different audiences in mind. Some of it, like many of Paul’s letters, was written for a specific church, not for all believers. Some of it was written for Jewish Christians, some for Gentiles.

I don’t think we should get hung-up on whether the bible should be read literally or not. That is not what is truly important. If we spend too much time on it (as I just have), then we may miss the over-riding messages contained in the NT, and the real meaning of the Gospels. We become more like the Pharisees and Scholars of the Law, instead of the disciples that we should strive to be.

And I must respectfully disagree with you about Adam and Eve, and the flood. In fact, since the Catholic Church itself accepts that much of Genesis is allegorical, your view could be considered a personal interpretation. Best be careful there.

I will check your examples out in a couple of days. I got too much going on to do a full analysis like I want to do with scripture. So are you denying that Adam and Eve existed and the flood?? Yes there are some allegory in the Bible, but to say that the Catholic Church accepts most of Genesis as allegorical is not true. As Catholics and I assume some mainline Protestant denominations accept God as the creator and that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that they are our first parents. I don’t believe in private interpretation whatsoever and no my view isn’t my private interpretation. My interpretation subsides with the Church was given authority. Here are scripture passages that constitute the Church’s authority and proves that the Holy Spirit is the authentic interpreter that confirms Church. Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:17, Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 10:16, John 14:16-26, John 16:13, 1 Timothy 3:15

 

[chaunceygardner]

I will check your examples out in a couple of days. I got too much going on to do a full analysis like I want to do with scripture. So are you denying that Adam and Eve existed and the flood?? Yes there are some allegory in the Bible, but to say that the Catholic Church accepts most of Genesis as allegorical is not true. As Catholics and I assume some mainline Protestant denominations accept God as the creator and that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that they are our first parents. I don’t believe in private interpretation whatsoever and no my view isn’t my private interpretation. My interpretation subsides with the Church was given authority. Here are scripture passages that constitute the Church’s authority and proves that the Holy Spirit is the authentic interpreter that confirms Church. Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:17, Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 10:16, John 14:16-26, John 16:13, 1 Timothy 3:15

We agree to disagree. May I suggest that you take one Gospel, open it to a chapter, then look for the same passages in the others. Read them and compare. The notes included with each Gospel in most bibles have a wealth of information about how the various passages agree or not.

Yes, I am saying that I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. Even the Catechism calls it “symbolism”. They represent our human failure to follow the Word of God. And the two competing creation stories in Genesis are another example of scriptural contradictions, if you take it literally.

I also believe in “private” interpretation. God gave us the intellect and the curiosity to learn more about Him and His creation. We should use it. And Revelation comes to those who seek Him in truth and in spirit. Which is what I am trying to do.

 

[tobinatorstark]

We agree to disagree. May I suggest that you take one Gospel, open it to a chapter, then look for the same passages in the others. Read them and compare. The notes included with each Gospel in most bibles have a wealth of information about how the various passages agree or not.

Yes, I am saying that I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. Even the Catechism calls it “symbolism”. They represent our human failure to follow the Word of God. And the two competing creation stories in Genesis are another example of scriptural contradictions, if you take it literally.

I also believe in “private” interpretation. God gave us the intellect and the curiosity to learn more about Him and His creation. We should use it. And Revelation comes to those who seek Him in truth and in spirit. Which is what I am trying to do.

you may want to look at the Greek and Aramaic that the Gospels were written in. The Gospel according to Matthew was written in Aramaic and the Gospel according to Luke in Greek. Aramaic may or may not have a word for inn or manger whereas the Greek my be the direct opposite. Point in case the word cousin doesn’t exist in Hebrew or Aramaic. Instead the word brother or brethren was used. You must look at the word in its proper context.

 

[tobinatorstark]

We agree to disagree. May I suggest that you take one Gospel, open it to a chapter, then look for the same passages in the others. Read them and compare. The notes included with each Gospel in most bibles have a wealth of information about how the various passages agree or not.

Yes, I am saying that I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. Even the Catechism calls it “symbolism”. They represent our human failure to follow the Word of God. And the two competing creation stories in Genesis are another example of scriptural contradictions, if you take it literally.

I also believe in “private” interpretation. God gave us the intellect and the curiosity to learn more about Him and His creation. We should use it. And Revelation comes to those who seek Him in truth and in spirit. Which is what I am trying to do.

No you took that out of context. You seen the word symbolism and assumed it that the creation of Adam and Eve is symbolism. You overlooked as to what the passage actually is saying

 

[novaslasher]

The Church itself interprets scripture, and defines doctrine based on these interpretations and Tradition. And to say that there is no private interpretation does not coincide with the fact much of the early doctrines were developed from the interpretations of different people, which were then gathered and formed into official doctrine. Who are we to say that the Holy Spirit cannot speak through someone of its choosing? I would never presume to tell God through whom He is allowed to deliver his messages!

I think private interpretation of scripture has its place. The Church uses scripture and the oral teachings of the apostles to lay out the framework for doctrine (those things we must believe). But that doesn’t mean that we can’t explore those beliefs and expand on them in a logical manner or find our own interpretations of Scripture that don’t conflict with the Church’s teachings. Part of reading any book is discerning the author’s intentions (in this case, the Holy Spirit), and also reflection on your own experiences in relation to the book to derive meaning. This type of private interpretation can be valuable for spiritual growth as long as we remember to respect the Church’s teachings and have the humility to accept correction when we make an error in interpretation due to ignorance.

The Church Fathers certainly explored the scriptures and helped to aid the development of doctrine to help us understand God and his relationship to his people better. Some of the Fathers made some mistakes in interpreting Scripture, but they (usually) had the humility to accept correction when needed. Through the Holy Spirit, the Church came to a better understanding of God and his Scripture as laid out in the work of the Church Fathers.

As far as the list of “contradictions” in scripture, I’ll leave that to another thread.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I think private interpretation of scripture has its place. The Church uses scripture and the oral teachings of the apostles to lay out the framework for doctrine (those things we must believe). But that doesn’t mean that we can’t explore those beliefs and expand on them in a logical manner or find our own interpretations of Scripture that don’t conflict with the Church’s teachings. Part of reading any book is discerning the author’s intentions (in this case, the Holy Spirit), and also reflection on your own experiences in relation to the book to derive meaning. This type of private interpretation can be valuable for spiritual growth as long as we remember to respect the Church’s teachings and have the humility to accept correction when we make an error in interpretation due to ignorance.

The Church Fathers certainly explored the scriptures and helped to aid the development of doctrine to help us understand God and his relationship to his people better. Some of the Fathers made some mistakes in interpreting Scripture, but they (usually) had the humility to accept correction when needed. Through the Holy Spirit, the Church came to a better understanding of God and his Scripture as laid out in the work of the Church Fathers.

As far as the list of “contradictions” in scripture, I’ll leave that to another thread.

I apologize for leaving the subject of your thread to respond to another post.

I agree with your thesis about the value of exploring scripture and trying to understand the intent of the author (or the person the author is telling us about). You appear to have a well-grounded view of how to approach developing a stronger relationship with God. I commend you.