Is sacred tradition more holy than scripture?

[Wesrock]

Jesus is conclusion of act or acting but Jesus is not the Creator who acts!

“Jesus is word of God” is being misinterpreted very tricky. God do not create with word but by omnipotend and power. “God says be! and it is” mean when God will to create something it is enough to say be! and power create it without any objection. Nothing can contravene. God is not kind of a human king who could not do something.

Jesus was born without a father and God to state that it is very easy for God to do such thing just saying be! is enough. God is not bound on laws indeed God creates laws.

Does God speak as we do? Does He waggle his tongue and project air from his lungs across His vocal chord? Or barring that, does He make a sound in the air by some other means? Does the “b” and the “e” sound separately with beginning and end? Does He say one syllable now and another later? Or, if it can’t be heard (no air to vibrate if he doesn’t make it!), does He at least move his metaphorical lips soundlessly, here open, there closed, here open again?

God’s Word is eternal. It is through the Word, His one, co-eternal Word existing before, through all moments of, and after time that He acts. God’s word is no mere utterance or vibration in the air. It is begotten, not made. It is consubstantial with Him, with no beginning or end (eternity being what it is).

 

[Servant19]

Jesus is conclusion of act or acting but Jesus is not the Creator who acts!

“Jesus is word of God” is being misinterpreted very tricky. God do not create with word but by omnipotend and power. “God says be! and it is” mean when God will to create something it is enough to say be! and power create it without any objection. Nothing can contravene. God is not kind of a human king who could not do something.

Jesus was born without a father and God to state that it is very easy for God to do such thing just saying be! is enough. God is not bound on laws indeed God creates laws.

Hasantas, Jesus/Muhammad/Baha’u’llah is the Word “BE”
It doesn’t make Him God, I agree, but without the Word, there is no creation.

It is understandable that Christianity has concluded that the Word is God.

.

 

[Micosil]

Hasantas, Jesus/Muhammad/Baha’u’llah is the Word “BE”
It doesn’t make Him God, I agree, but without the Word, there is no creation.

It is understandable that Christianity has concluded that the Word is God.

.

Yes, because John explicitly says so. It isn’t even something to deduce, it’s written down directly in John that way.

 

[Servant19]

Like I said before to hasantas, confusing oral tradition with the “telephone game” is a misunderstanding. The Jewish culture had a much, much more rigorous way of transmitting and preserving oral tradition. Teachers would make kids recite Scripture and prayers and Oral Law until they knew it perfectly.

In the telephone game, people whisper once to the next one in line, as opposed to a whole community being able to validate what is being said.

Even in Scripture you find examples of oral tradition.

Where is that in the Old Testament?

Where does it speak of Moses’ seat in the Old Testament?

Where does it speak of this angelic battle between Michael and Satan in the Old Testament?

This last verse from Jude is explained as follows in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture by H. Willmering:

Paul also requests the reader of 2 Thessalonians to hold on to oral tradition if need be:

No one doubts that during the times when authentic recording of the words of the Prophets did not exist because of a lack of recording materials, that the oral tradition was important, however what is critical is an authoritative source of oral tradition today.

In Catholic Oral Tradition, what is the teachings which are taught to children to memorise perfectly since the time of Jesus?

.

 

[Servant19]

Yes, because John explicitly says so. It isn’t even something to deduce, it’s written down directly in John that way.

There is a two-fold language in the Epilogue, Micosil

The Word is “with” God contradicts the Word “is” God.

It is important to understand the two-fold language, don’t you think?

Epistemology and ontology must be considered here.

.

 

[Micosil]

There is a two-fold language in the Epilogue, Micosil

The Word is “with” God contradicts the Word “is” God.

It is important to understand the two-fold language, don’t you think?

Epistemology and ontology must be considered here.

.

The Greek seems rather clear, unfortunately. Of course, those are valid forms of research, but it seems this is indeed how the earliest Christians understood it.

 

[Servant19]

The Greek seems rather clear, unfortunately. Of course, those are valid forms of research, but it seems this is indeed how the earliest Christians understood it.

I’m a little confused Micosil, if you could help me please?

What is in the Greek that is clear?

.

 

[Wesrock]

There is a two-fold language in the Epilogue, Micosil

The Word is “with” God contradicts the Word “is” God.

It is important to understand the two-fold language, don’t you think?

Epistemology and ontology must be considered here.

.

It’s no contradiction if the Father and Son are two persons, or if it’s referring to one person within the single God-head. You are absolutely right, it’s important to understand the two-fold language. It’s one of the earliest written articulations of the Son being God and how this works. It’s basically a midrash.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Jesus is conclusion of act or acting but Jesus is not the Creator who acts!

“Jesus is word of God” is being misinterpreted very tricky. God do not create with word but by omnipotend and power. “God says be! and it is” mean when God will to create something it is enough to say be! and power create it without any objection. Nothing can contravene. God is not kind of a human king who could not do something.

Jesus was born without a father and God to state that it is very easy for God to do such thing just saying be! is enough. God is not bound on laws indeed God creates laws.

John 1:3 “All things were made by him [the Word = Jesus] and without him was made nothing that was made.” Pretty clear. No room for misinterpretation.

On the reliability of oral tradition, have a look at reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliable-was-the-early-churchs-oral-traditions/ or just do a search on “reliability oral tradition” where there are a lot of articles. The conclusion is that 1st century oral tradition could accurately pass on eyewitness accounts. It was not “a game of telephone.”

Keep in mind these oral traditions were being written down very early. In the early 2nd century, Papias, who was a disciple of the apostle John, said that the Apostle Matthew [remember, he was the tax collector, so obviously literate] was the note taker for the Apostles. Within 20 years after Jesus’s death Paul was writing epistles that we still have.

On the Islamic side, the 6 main hadith collections were not created until 200+ years after the death of Muhammad. The first we hear of hadith collections is under the Umayyads, 30+ years after the death of Muhammad. As far as I know, we no longer have those early collections; they have disappeared. The problem with hadith is that as time went on, the number of hadith multiplied. Malik b. Anas had 1,700, I think. But then there were tens of thousands. Yes, a lot of them were variations on the same hadith–but often they contradicted each other. And clearly some of them were inventions since they mentioned things that happened long after the death of Muhammad or were clearly written to support one side or other in much later debates. So if Muslims want to challenge oral tradition in Christianity, they have a much more serious problem in Islam.

Another problem with hadith is that Muslim scholars have concentrated almost exclusively on the isnad–the chain of transmission. So their efforts have been in the area of biography, showing that person A would have been in Cairo at the same time person B was living there, and thus able to transmit a hadith. This is good as far as it goes, but it ignores the more basic problem–examining the meaning of the hadith themselves, and trying to sort out which ones are authentic by meaning, not by who transmitted them.

Western scholars (until recently) followed the Muslim example and concentrated on the isnad, or chain of transmission. It’s only very recently they have begun looking at the meaning to try and understand them better. As far as I know Muslim scholars have not been interested in doing this.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The Word is “with” God contradicts the Word “is” God.
.

It only is a contradiction if you don’t believe in the Trinity. If there are three persons in one God (how is a mystery–bi la kayfa if you like) then Jesus was both “with” God and “is” God at the same time. John is, of course, trying to describe the Trinity.

I think a good example of the Trinity is H2O. Below freezing, it is ice. from 0-100 Celsius, it is water. Above 100 Celsius it’s water vapor. So there are 3 forms, but the chemical composition is exactly the same. Would anyone say that ice is not H2O? That water vapor is not H2O? No. But would ice, water, and water vapor have different characteristics? Yes.

 

[Wesrock]

It only is a contradiction if you don’t believe in the Trinity. If there are three persons in one God (how is a mystery–bi la kayfa if you like) then Jesus was both “with” God and “is” God at the same time. John is, of course, trying to describe the Trinity.

I think a good example of the Trinity is H2O. Below freezing, it is ice. from 0-100 Celsius, it is water. Above 100 Celsius it’s water vapor. So there are 3 forms, but the chemical composition is exactly the same. Would anyone say that ice is not H2O? That water vapor is not H2O? No. But would ice, water, and water vapor have different characteristics? Yes.

I agree with your first paragraph, but the second would be considered modalism/Sabellianism, which is a non-Trinitarian view of Father/Son/Holy Spirit. Your description has an implication of one person who could exist in various states, as opposed to a Triune God of three persons.

Edit: I see you may be leaving Christianity from your description, and if you’re offering an opposing view, that is okay. I just wanted to be clear it’s not an accurate description of orthodox (small ‘o’) Christian belief.

 

[Micosil]

No one doubts that during the times when authentic recording of the words of the Prophets did not exist because of a lack of recording materials, that the oral tradition was important, however what is critical is an authoritative source of oral tradition today.

In Catholic Oral Tradition, what is the teachings which are taught to children to memorise perfectly since the time of Jesus?

.

Since we’re in the modern age now, Sacred Tradition is also now written down as definitive teachings in catechisms, encyclicals, Papal bulls and the like.

I’m a little confused Micosil, if you could help me please?

What is in the Greek that is clear?

.

The best explanation I saw of this is in the NABRE’s footnotes:

a. 1:1–18 The prologue states the main themes of the gospel: life, light, truth, the world, testimony, and the preexistence of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos, who reveals God the Father. In origin, it was probably an early Christian hymn. Its closest parallel is in other christological hymns, Col 1:15–20 and Phil 2:6–11. Its core (Jn 1:1–5, 10–11, 14) is poetic in structure, with short phrases linked by “staircase parallelism,” in which the last word of one phrase becomes the first word of the next. Prose inserts (at least Jn 1:6–8, 15) deal with John the Baptist.

1:1 In the beginning: also the first words of the Old Testament (Gn 1:1). Was: this verb is used three times with different meanings in this verse: existence, relationship, and predication. The Word (Greek logos): this term combines God’s dynamic, creative word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the instrument of God’s creative activity (Proverbs), and the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy). With God: the Greek preposition here connotes communication with another. Was God: lack of a definite article with “God” in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I agree with your first paragraph, but the second would be considered modalism/Sabellianism, which is a non-Trinitarian view of Father/Son/Holy Spirit. Your description has an implication of one person who could exist in various states, as opposed to a Triune God of three persons.

Edit: I see you may be leaving Christianity from your description, and if you’re offering an opposing view, that is okay. I just wanted to be clear it’s not an accurate description of orthodox (small ‘o’) Christian belief.

Thanks. I was unaware of modalism/Sabellianism. Having read the article about it in Wikipedia, I can see how my example of water may not be the best way to explain it, since it certainly implies that one molecule H2O, can appear in 3 forms. I was not really trying to suggest this. So now I’m trying to think of another analogy–and not St. Patrick’s clover leaf.
Any ideas?

 

[hasantas]

John 1:3 “All things were made by him [the Word = Jesus] and without him was made nothing that was made.” Pretty clear. No room for misinterpretation.

.

Here some different interpretations.

Parallel Verses
New International Version
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

New Living Translation
God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him.

English Standard Version
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Berean Study Bible
Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

Berean Literal Bible
All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

New American Standard Bible
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

King James Bible
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.

International Standard Version
Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made.

NET Bible
All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Everything was in his hand, and without him not even one thing existed of the things that existed.

GOD’S WORD® Translation
Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.

Everything was made through Him but not by Him. That means “Him” is not creator but something like intermediation or intervention.

 

[Wesrock]

Here some different interpretations.

Parallel Verses
New International Version
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

New Living Translation
God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him.

English Standard Version
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Berean Study Bible
Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

Berean Literal Bible
All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

New American Standard Bible
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

King James Bible
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.

International Standard Version
Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made.

NET Bible
All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Everything was in his hand, and without him not even one thing existed of the things that existed.

GOD’S WORD® Translation
Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.

Everything was made through Him but not by Him. That means “Him” is not creator but something like intermediation or intervention.

Yes, “through him all things were made” is a part of our Creed:

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ
Born of the Father before all ages
God from God, Light from Light,
True God from True God,
Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.

The line before it sums up the part in dispute. But nobody disagrees that God created through His one, eternal Word.

And let’s not forget the opening verse of John, which preceeds the one you quoted. It’s actually in my signature.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

And if we wish to focus on the word order of “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος,” the article being only before logos makes logos the subject and theos the predicate nominative, while theos being at the start of the phrase puts great emphasis on God, meaning that the author clearly meant God and not “a god.”

 

[hasantas]

On the reliability of oral tradition, have a look at reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliable-was-the-early-churchs-oral-traditions/ or just do a search on “reliability oral tradition” where there are a lot of articles. The conclusion is that 1st century oral tradition could accurately pass on eyewitness accounts. It was not “a game of telephone.”

Keep in mind these oral traditions were being written down very early. In the early 2nd century, Papias, who was a disciple of the apostle John, said that the Apostle Matthew [remember, he was the tax collector, so obviously literate] was the note taker for the Apostles. Within 20 years after Jesus’s death Paul was writing epistles that we still have.

I do not reject oral tradition. There are something different in case. Principles of Jesus were spread in Rome. The oral tradition could be trustable in places Jesus was used to live. Rome had different culture and religions and Paganism was penetrating. Romans ascribe their king and heros miraculous attributions and that effected believers and followers of Jesus. The western believers ascribe Jesus divine attributions but the eastern followers whom were more close to essentials of faith did not. They set assemble and discussed. The westerns were very hard and powerful.

Paul was enemy of Jesus and he executed followers of Jesus. He could not stop and prevent believers. But he joined them and opened a new road. Is there any apostle who verify Paul? Is there anything about doctrines of Paul in Gospels or in epistles of other apostles?

Emperor Constantine I sided with Athanasius against Arius. It was very usual that Arius would loss. Constantine tried to reconcile his former pagan religion with faith of Jesus.

 

[hasantas]

On the Islamic side, the 6 main hadith collections were not created until 200+ years after the death of Muhammad. The first we hear of hadith collections is under the Umayyads, 30+ years after the death of Muhammad. As far as I know, we no longer have those early collections; they have disappeared. The problem with hadith is that as time went on, the number of hadith multiplied. Malik b. Anas had 1,700, I think. But then there were tens of thousands. Yes, a lot of them were variations on the same hadith–but often they contradicted each other. And clearly some of them were inventions since they mentioned things that happened long after the death of Muhammad or were clearly written to support one side or other in much later debates. So if Muslims want to challenge oral tradition in Christianity, they have a much more serious problem in Islam.

Another problem with hadith is that Muslim scholars have concentrated almost exclusively on the isnad–the chain of transmission. So their efforts have been in the area of biography, showing that person A would have been in Cairo at the same time person B was living there, and thus able to transmit a hadith. This is good as far as it goes, but it ignores the more basic problem–examining the meaning of the hadith themselves, and trying to sort out which ones are authentic by meaning, not by who transmitted them.

Western scholars (until recently) followed the Muslim example and concentrated on the isnad, or chain of transmission. It’s only very recently they have begun looking at the meaning to try and understand them better. As far as I know Muslim scholars have not been interested in doing this.

The problems in Hadiths do not effect Qur’an and faith.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The problems in Hadiths do not effect Qur’an and faith.

How can it not, when the number is not agreed upon and what is authentic is not agreed upon, and what the meaning of the Quranic words are supplemented by scholars with hadith?

Seems like it effects people of faith and the interpretations of the Quran. If you claim it doesn’t effect the Quran, are you referring to some ethereal “eternal Quran”, or the actual practice of it’s words in the real world?

 

[Wesrock]

Paul was enemy of Jesus and he executed followers of Jesus. He could not stop and prevent believers. But he joined them and opened a new road. Is there any apostle who verify Paul? Is there anything about doctrines of Paul in Gospels or in epistles of other apostles?

Emperor Constantine I sided with Athanasius against Arius. It was very usual that Arius would loss. Constantine tried to reconcile his former pagan religion with faith of Jesus.

Constantine was more likely Arian in leanings, not Trinitarian, though he accepted the results of the Council. There’s a lot of misinformation in this post.

Half of the Acts of the Apostles, written by the author of the Gospel of Luke, concerns Paul and his travels. I’d rather not have to quote half of a Bible book, here. However, there is also the second letter of Peter 3:

14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters.

 

[Servant19]

I would like to ask this question again from an earlier post please?

No one doubts that during the times when authentic recording of the words of the Prophets did not exist because of a lack of recording materials, that the oral tradition was important, however what is critical is an authoritative source of oral tradition today.

In Catholic Oral Tradition, what is the teachings which are taught to children to memorise perfectly since the time of Jesus?

.

.