Is sacred tradition more holy than scripture?

[simspt]

Christians usually refer to holy tradition of Church when they interpret Bible. The doctrines just like Trinity and Original Sin are not founded into Bible clearly but those were established by Church and it tried to support doctrines by Bible. The problem is that the doctrines are not supported by Bible directly. Church could not put it’s doctrines into Bible from very initially but instead Church established a very holy tradition which is considered to be more holy than Bible. So does that holy tradition really surpass Bible?

The CC does not hold Tradition to be superior to the Scriptures but rather the Scriptures to be part of Tradition. The two-source theory that was put forth by some Catholics was rejected during Vatican II. There is no problem that the Church’s doctrines aren’t explicit within Scriptures, they are all implicit. All of them with the exception of maybe the incarnation (thats as explicit as it gets IMO) go to some degree beyond Scriptures but none contradict them. Try picking up a copy of Conger’s Tradition and Traditions for an excellent explanation of Tradition and its relationship to the Scriptures.
amazon.com/Tradition-Traditions-Biblical-Historical-Theological/dp/0536001731

 

[simspt]

That is not true. Because Qur’an verify Bible. And if we consider both are words of God then they cannot conflict.(Bible is not direct words of God but through interpretations. There is no original text. Problem should occur from that)

Everything is interpretation, to claim otherwise is dubious at best, everything is based on faith also, you can’t prove textually nor historically what your claiming regarding verification, originality or inspiration, revelation and inerrancy.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I would humbly disagree here Erika

I’m not a Muslim, however I can see tremendous compatibility between the Quran and the Bible. If sufficient cross-referencing is between within the Books and between the Books, there is a lot of clarification in relation to the spiritual Truths both books are portraying

I didn’t talk about Qur’an vs. Bible. My comment was about Jesus in Gospels vs. Jesus in the Qur’an. And while there is some agreement about when he lived, where he lived, who his mother was, etc. it’s the theological elements that are completely different–a prophet vs. God. Obviously these are not compatible ideas.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

What I cannot understand is the things like the Assumption of Mary etc taking so long to record and formalise. How can the inspired Word of God as recorded by the Gospel writers and Apostles miss such an important teaching?

I think you–and a lot of people–fall into the trap of assuming that the Christians 2,000 years ago acted the same as Christians would today. Today, we would hold a conference on a specific topic, we would have working groups prepare position papers, there would be a formal debate, and there would be a vote. If there was a consensus of opinion, they would issue a press release or a report explaining the consensus position.

But in the 1st century, the disciples were busy a) trying to stay alive and b) trying to convert people to Christianity by explaining the basic message. There were no formal meetings. If you read the New Testament, you’ll see that Paul–a very important Apostle–came to Jerusalem twice to discuss things with the other Apostles. We read of him meeting with Peter and two other Apostles. I assume if he met with all the Apostles, there would be a note about it. There isn’t. So if they didn’t get together as a group for that important even, I think you can assume they didn’t get together at all. There were letters back and forth, and messengers. We know this from the Gospels and Epistles. So they weren’t operating in isolation from each other. But they didn’t meet as a group to discuss issues, and they didn’t see any need to. Remember that they all believed that each one was being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Let’s take the most basic, central idea in Christianity: exactly how Jesus could be both God and man. It’s like any problem, whether religious or scientific. At first you formulate some conclusion or theory, and then someone comes along and says “What about this or that? How does that fit in with your theory?” So the debate continued for centuries. And this was a central doctrine. So we shouldn’t be surprised that minor issues took a long time to be formalized.

How much time do you think 1st century Christians spent worrying about what happened to Mary’s body after her death? I suspect very few, if any, people gave it any thought at all. They had more important things to worry about. But at some point some people asked the question. Then it became a question of logic. Would Jesus have let his mother’s body decay? In the Gospels it talks about Jesus’s body being assumed into Heaven. So someone along the line asked “If Jesus could be assumed into Heaven, why not his mother Mary?” And as people thought about it, they came to the same conclusion. It became a general belief. And in the 19th century it was formalized as a doctrine.

(I’m not an expert in any of this, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!)

 

[Erikaspirit16]

That is not true. Because Qur’an verify Bible. And if we consider both are words of God then they cannot conflict.(Bible is not direct words of God but through interpretations. There is no original text. Problem should occur from that)

Certainly you have found the central problem: If both the New Testament and the Qur’an are revelations from God, they cannot conflict with each other. But they do. So there are only two possibilities as far as I can see: The New Testament is corrupted (the Muslim view) or the Qur’an is not a revelation from God (the Christian view). So, frankly, the sorts of arguments we are all making on this thread are futile.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

First look at #83.
Hadiths were written very initially as verses of Qur’an. Qur’an verses were compiled in a book by Abu Bakr but hadiths were started to be compiled after about 150-200 years. Why did hadiths not be compiled in the beginning? One of reason should be that Muslims did not allow verses and hadiths to be confused.

Islamic scholars struggled vey much to relate hadiths correctly. Ofcourse there had been some problems. But we have thousands valid hadiths now. Christian ignore that they do not have the original text of their scripture but they see hadiths problematic! Even the problems in hadiths are not so serious as much as Gospels. Gospels conflict which others too.

I understand and agree with everything you said except the paragraph I’m quoting–hadiths were originally written as verses of the Qur’an? I never heard that before. Do you have any references for that???

From my own study it seems to me that Muslims have abandoned their original goal of deciding what a valid hadith was. Originally, they studied the isnad or chain of transmission. As I said before, it’s only very recently that Western scholars have begun to look at the meaning of each hadith as a means to see if it was valid. There may be some Muslims working at the same thing, but I am unaware of them. If you have examples, let me know.

What DOES happen constantly is that Muslims come up against something that in the year 2016 is generally considered a “bad” thing–beating your wife, having multiple wives, marrying 9-year-old girls, forcing women to wear hijab, fighting non-believers until they submit, etc. etc. There are many, many hadiths about all these subjects. A lot of Muslims today simply say that the hadith supporting those “bad” things are not valid. But they are ignoring 1400 years’ worth of Islamic scholarship and law that supported these hadiths as valid. I don’t see how you can just dismiss something that has been accepted for 1400 years because now it’s convenient. For me, this is a major problem.

Also, as you should know, there are many hadith about the Qur’an that say that verses of the Qur’an were lost because those who remembered them were killed in battle. Ayesha has a hadith that says she had some verses of the Qur’an written down and she kept them under her pillow. A goat came in and ate them, and they were lost! There are also hadith that explicitly say that a certain person remembered a Qur’anic verse one way and another person remembered it another way.

 

[hasantas]

The CC does not hold Tradition to be superior to the Scriptures but rather the Scriptures to be part of Tradition. The two-source theory that was put forth by some Catholics was rejected during Vatican II. There is no problem that the Church’s doctrines aren’t explicit within Scriptures, they are all implicit. All of them with the exception of maybe the incarnation (thats as explicit as it gets IMO) go to some degree beyond Scriptures but none contradict them. Try picking up a copy of Conger’s Tradition and Traditions for an excellent explanation of Tradition and its relationship to the Scriptures.
amazon.com/Tradition-Traditions-Biblical-Historical-Theological/dp/0536001731

Faith is key point of salvation. So should not faith be established firmly unto solid foundation? Are mysteries or strained interpretations reliable to be source of faith? Prophets are guided and taught by God but people could do mistakes very easily. So the source of faith must be revelation. And that must be very clear. Most of people are not philosopher to comprehend doctrines(non of explanation could prove doctrines exactly).

 

[Servant19]

I didn’t talk about Qur’an vs. Bible. My comment was about Jesus in Gospels vs. Jesus in the Qur’an. And while there is some agreement about when he lived, where he lived, who his mother was, etc. it’s the theological elements that are completely different–a prophet vs. God. Obviously these are not compatible ideas.

Thank you Erika. You are very generous with your time in presenting your perspective and I truly appreciate it.

In my humble perspective, shaped by my beliefs and understanding of the Baha’i Revelation, there is a two-fold nature to these Founders of major global religions. The Divine and the human side.

The seeming contradictions between the Quran on Jesus and the Bible on Jesus is based solely on the focus of the respective Revelations of Jesus and Muhammad.

It seems clear (to me anyway, but I may be talking rubbish) that in a climate of polytheism and idol worship, God sends a Messenger that has a significant lesser focus on the Divine aspect of a Prophet. Muhammad was sent by God to lift the Arabian tribes out of the slums of idol worship and polytheism.

Teaching people about the Divinity of Himself and Jesus would simply have added another source of worship. The result? Extra idol worship…

The focus of Jesus was more on His Divine aspect which is true also. Praying to Jesus is a fruit of that teaching, but it doesn’t deny the two fold nature of all the Prophets. Muhammad had a Divine station too, and I know many Muslims who think of the Prophet Muhammad when they pray to Allah, even though He didn’t explicitly teach it.

So think of the two-fold nature of these Prophets/Divine Beings and note how one Revelation focuses on one aspect more than the other.



.

 

[hasantas]

Certainly you have found the central problem: If both the New Testament and the Qur’an are revelations from God, they cannot conflict with each other. But they do. So there are only two possibilities as far as I can see: The New Testament is corrupted (the Muslim view) or the Qur’an is not a revelation from God (the Christian view). So, frankly, the sorts of arguments we are all making on this thread are futile.

Which possibility is more likely? A scripture of which there is no original text. Even so there are no doctrines of Church in scripture but they are established by Holy Tradition!

Or a scripture which was revealed by witnessing of thousands Sahabas. And that scripture(Qur’an) is miraculous and Qur’an challenge for about 1400 years to bring someting equal to Qur’an. But nobody could do that and nobody will be able to do. There are at least 40 miraculous attributions of Qur’an which demonstrate that Qur’an is revelation but not work of Muhammad. It take to long to explain every miraculous attribution. Just to give an idea, if we pay attention to verses of Qur’an we will see that it is God who speak through verses. There is no any statement which is told by Muhammad. If we think that Muhammad was a liar and tricker but it is not important how Muhammad was clever or devious but nobody could do such thing. He could not read or write but he wrote a book and philosophers and scientists and scholars and etc etc can learn many new knowledge from Qur’an. Such thing cannot be work of human. All the words of Allah encounter to each others in Qur’an. That is a miracle for eyes who do not believe.

hayrat.com.tr/icerik/kuran-ikerim/tevafuklu-kuran-i-kerim.aspx

There are more …

 

[Servant19]

I think you–and a lot of people–fall into the trap of assuming that the Christians 2,000 years ago acted the same as Christians would today. Today, we would hold a conference on a specific topic, we would have working groups prepare position papers, there would be a formal debate, and there would be a vote. If there was a consensus of opinion, they would issue a press release or a report explaining the consensus position.

But in the 1st century, the disciples were busy a) trying to stay alive and b) trying to convert people to Christianity by explaining the basic message. There were no formal meetings. If you read the New Testament, you’ll see that Paul–a very important Apostle–came to Jerusalem twice to discuss things with the other Apostles. We read of him meeting with Peter and two other Apostles. I assume if he met with all the Apostles, there would be a note about it. There isn’t. So if they didn’t get together as a group for that important even, I think you can assume they didn’t get together at all. There were letters back and forth, and messengers. We know this from the Gospels and Epistles. So they weren’t operating in isolation from each other. But they didn’t meet as a group to discuss issues, and they didn’t see any need to. Remember that they all believed that each one was being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Let’s take the most basic, central idea in Christianity: exactly how Jesus could be both God and man. It’s like any problem, whether religious or scientific. At first you formulate some conclusion or theory, and then someone comes along and says “What about this or that? How does that fit in with your theory?” So the debate continued for centuries. And this was a central doctrine. So we shouldn’t be surprised that minor issues took a long time to be formalized.

How much time do you think 1st century Christians spent worrying about what happened to Mary’s body after her death? I suspect very few, if any, people gave it any thought at all. They had more important things to worry about. But at some point some people asked the question. Then it became a question of logic. Would Jesus have let his mother’s body decay? In the Gospels it talks about Jesus’s body being assumed into Heaven. So someone along the line asked “If Jesus could be assumed into Heaven, why not his mother Mary?” And as people thought about it, they came to the same conclusion. It became a general belief. And in the 19th century it was formalized as a doctrine.

(I’m not an expert in any of this, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!)

Hi again Erika, you make very valid points.

I can accept that due to various circumstances, a certain teaching is not recorded as Scripture, but remains an Oral Tradition for 1,2, even 3 centuries, but for 18 centuries?

I personally feel things like this become more of a consensus by deduction and reason, rather than official Oral Tradition. I feel man-made teachings start to creep in as a result.
But even man-made teachings borne out of sincere deduction and reasoning from the Traditions that several people may bring to the table will be of spiritual benefit to a religious community. Anything that unites people founded on sincere collaboration of religious Traditions is a good thing. However, it may not necessarily be the Truth.

The Jews had their own Traditions too, an Apostolic Succession, the laying of hands and passing of Oral Traditions, and yet still Jesus corrected the “interpretations” that they had deduced from their Scriptures. Circumcision, the Sabbath, adultery, divorce etc etc

I personally believe Prophet Muhammad was in many ways sent for the same reasons. Only God can unlock the mysteries of Revelation.

.

 

[hasantas]

I understand and agree with everything you said except the paragraph I’m quoting–hadiths were originally written as verses of the Qur’an? I never heard that before. Do you have any references for that???

.

Yes. If you investigate you can find by yourself. I have references in Turkish and I do not use English. The issue is that:

There are some hadiths in which prophet Muhammad said: “Do not write hadiths. Do you want to add something by revelation(words of God) as previous people of scripture did!”

But there are some hadiths in which prophet Muhammad allowed to write hadiths. Prophet Muhammad did not tasked secrataries to write hadiths. So He prevent verses and hadiths to be confused each others. But He advised Sahabas to record hadiths by pen personal. That is concerned to this thread. In Gospels there are verses but it is not clear which is direct revelation and which is words of Jesus as human or comments of writers.

If we consider that the hadiths were compiled for about 150-200 years after Muhammad then there would must be texts and writings. Because all Sahabas were died any more.

 

[Wesrock]

If God wish to something happen then it is enough to say be! and it is.

No Christian would disagree with this.

 

[benhur]

If God wish to something happen then it is enough to say be! and it is.

Hi h,

“Let us not suppose that because God can do something that he did”, from an early church father. But that is the question , just what did He do, for He can do all, but chose only One way.

But that is not possible and is very comic because all attributions of God are eternal and they do not split and differ.

Now you are saying God can’t do something. I mean God can speak thru a bush, or a jackass, or a storm, or in a whisper, yet He can not be in a man, as one?

And eternal being is out and beyond of time and matter.

Yes, and some (Gnostics ?) said God is holy and how can a holy God take on sinful flesh ? An eternal being can be both beyond time and matter and in every second of time and matter.

So in the beginning was the word.That means the word of God was said by Himself to create Jesus without father.

Just that everything that was created was created by Jesus, “He who made the world was in the world” . Nothing that was created was not created by Him

Word was with God means that the word of God is eternal and it had not yet manifested in material world before creating Jesus.

The word of God is manifested in all creation. The word of God is manifetsed in the OT. Jesus was that rock in the wilderness , that Moses interacted with. Jesus is Jehovah, humanly manifested, the I am".

And the word was God m"eans that it was God to say be!(word) to create Jesus.

Jesus created everything and therefore could not have created Himself.

Blessings

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Which possibility is more likely? A scripture of which there is no original text. Even so there are no doctrines of Church in scripture but they are established by Holy Tradition!

There are more …

Your looking at the bible falsely as if it were a book of catechism or a book of doctrines, it’s not really any of those things. The bible more or less is a story in which there are those elements which contribute to an understanding of doctrine. Part of the tradition of the Church is to work out those doctrines concerning who God is when the questions arise and the Church has done this with recourse to her scripture and her tradition (tradition being the worship, practice and general teachings which Christians have received). Perhaps I differ from Roman Catholics on my view of tradition here. To speak of it like a series of oral communications which were expected to be perfectly memorized is wrong, but to negate the importance of orally passing down the faith from one generation to another is also wrong.

Scripture and tradition work for the edification of the Church, setting them up against one another will only end up destroying the reason for why we have a bible in the first place. Negating the bible will neglect the text to which that tradition has looked to.

Also I don’t know the significance of there being no original text, can you clarify the problem of us not having the original books the authors of the New testament wrote on?

 

[hasantas]

From my own study it seems to me that Muslims have abandoned their original goal of deciding what a valid hadith was. Originally, they studied the isnad or chain of transmission. As I said before, it’s only very recently that Western scholars have begun to look at the meaning of each hadith as a means to see if it was valid. There may be some Muslims working at the same thing, but I am unaware of them. If you have examples, let me know.

.

As much I know the first requirement for hadith is that do the meaning of hadith conflict with Qur’an and general knowledges in Islam or not. If the meaning of hadiths do not conflict with Qur’an and Islam then it require that the relater/writer of hadiths should be reliable. After that the isnad and chain come. That is explained in hadiths book.

 

[hasantas]

What DOES happen constantly is that Muslims come up against something that in the year 2016 is generally considered a “bad” thing–beating your wife, having multiple wives, marrying 9-year-old girls, forcing women to wear hijab, fighting non-believers until they submit, etc. etc. There are many, many hadiths about all these subjects. A lot of Muslims today simply say that the hadith supporting those “bad” things are not valid. But they are ignoring 1400 years’ worth of Islamic scholarship and law that supported these hadiths as valid. I don’t see how you can just dismiss something that has been accepted for 1400 years because now it’s convenient. For me, this is a major problem.
.

Yes … There are very convenient explanation of all those issues. Let’s start with beating wifes.

beating wife is not an issue which is exist in hadiths. Conversely Muhammad had never beat His wifes. In hadith prophet Muhammad advise to behave very well for wifes. And prophet Muhammad advised not to beat wifes. Just in a Hadith it is said that the most propitious of you is whom behave good for wife. Beating wife is in Qur’an:

34-Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. An-Nisa(4)

There is truthful interpretation of that verse.

 

[hasantas]

What DOES happen constantly is that Muslims come up against something that in the year 2016 is generally considered a “bad” thing–beating your wife, having multiple wives, marrying 9-year-old girls, forcing women to wear hijab, fighting non-believers until they submit, etc. etc. There are many, many hadiths about all these subjects. A lot of Muslims today simply say that the hadith supporting those “bad” things are not valid. But they are ignoring 1400 years’ worth of Islamic scholarship and law that supported these hadiths as valid. I don’t see how you can just dismiss something that has been accepted for 1400 years because now it’s convenient. For me, this is a major problem.

.

having multiple wives is not in hadiths but in Qur’an. And Qur’an did not say make wives from one to four but reduce numbers of wives to 4. Having multiple wives was custom and tradition of people before Islam and exist in previous religion. For instance David and Solomon had multpile wives. The multiple wives was in all cultures before Islam. As much I know there is no a prohibition in Bible for multply wives.

verses about multply wives:

3-And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]. An-Nisa

129-And you will never be able to be equal [in feeling] between wives, even if you should strive [to do so]. So do not incline completely [toward one] and leave another hanging. And if you amend [your affairs] and fear Allah - then indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.

If you notice in vesres Qur’an do not advise multiple wives but tell about difficulties of it. Why did not Qur’an ban multiple wives? There should be many reasons. By wars sometimes the number of men reduce so to prevent corruption and women God allowed. And some men do not make do with one woman so to prevent from adultery God allowed such men to have multiple wives. etc. But Qur’an advise to have one wife. Allah know the dispositon of human best.

Muhammad did not allowe His son-in-law(Ali) to have another wife beside His daughter. That demonstrate that Muhammad did not wish multiple wives. The case for Him is different which concerned Islam in some ways. Just one thing His marriages were not because of lust.

 

[hasantas]

Hi h,

“Let us not suppose that because God can do something that he did”, from an early church father. But that is the question , just what did He do, for He can do all, but chose only One way.
Now you are saying God can’t do something. I mean God can speak thru a bush, or a jackass, or a storm, or in a whisper, yet He can not be in a man, as one? Yes, and some (Gnostics ?) said God is holy and how can a holy God take on sinful flesh ? An eternal being can be both beyond time and matter and in every second of time and matter.
Just that everything that was created was created by Jesus, “He who made the world was in the world” . Nothing that was created was not created by Him
The word of God is manifested in all creation. The word of God is manifetsed in the OT. Jesus was that rock in the wilderness , that Moses interacted with. Jesus is Jehovah, humanly manifested, the I am".
Jesus created everything and therefore could not have created Himself.

Blessings

All these are your thougths(Church’s doctrines) without any valid indication.

Incarnation is not just concerning with God can do everything but it is pertinent with attribution of God. For instance God can persecute but God do not. God can be injustice but God never do such thing. Because those actions conflict with attributions of God.Yet all attributions of God are eternal and out of time and matter. Incarnation just not conflict with an attribution but with alls.

Jesus was a human who was created by God and you say(doctrines or holy tradititon) Jesus create everything. Speaking through something is manifestation and God did not transform a brush or a storm but manifested through them. That is like reflection which which seems unto mirror. The reflection is not mirror itself.

Eternal substance is beyond of time and matter not inside but can effect time and matter always. So there is no need to be inside because eternal being can see, feel effect etc every times and matter.

Nothing was created was not cerated by God. And incarnation should be in a time and through matter which is conflict with eternity.

We love Jesus very much but that excessively love should not cause us to make mistake.

 

[Wesrock]

Jesus’ body and soul, his human nature, were creations and subject to change and time. However, Jesus’ divine nature is eternal and immutable, present in the person of Jesus but not subject to time as his body and soul were.

God did speak through a burning bush, from the mouth of an ***, and had other theophanies which took place in time. His Spirit resided in the Temple, took up it’s place at a particular point in time and space in a way that was different than in the rest of creation. It could be present, but still eternal and itself not subject to change.

 

[hasantas]

Jesus’ body and soul, his human nature, were creations and subject to change and time. However, Jesus’ divine nature is eternal and immutable, present in the person of Jesus but not subject to time as his body and soul were.

God did speak through a burning bush, from the mouth of an ***, and had other theophanies which took place in time. His Spirit resided in the Temple, took up it’s place at a particular point in time and space in a way that was different than in the rest of creation. It could be present, but still eternal and itself not subject to change.

Then with that human soul and body Jesus was a human! l have human soul and body and l think my soul can conduct with God any way. And all people have a soul and body. What was different for Jesus?

When we speak God create the wave of sound so it can be heard. So God can create sound in any way for human to hear. That sound is not part of God anymore but His creation. God create soul but souls are not part of God but His creation. Our seeing is from God but it is not part of attribution. lt is creation and manifestation of attribution. Eternal essence of God is never in time.

Time is small circle and eternity is big circle which surround all times. So there is no need to say the big circle can be both inside and external but it is always external.