Is the Bible (Sacred Scripture) Tradition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Malachi4U
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Malachi4U

Guest
I was reading Exodus and discovered that the Jews had Tradition long before they wrote Scripture from their Tradition. The Catholic Church had Tradition plus the Jewish Sacred Scripture (Greek Septuigent) before the Chruch inked out the New Testament reflecting Tradition.

So, what are your thoughts on the similarities and is the Bible nothing but a sub-part of Catholic (which includes Jewish pre-Christ) Tradition?

Its amazing how so many people just think Scripture came down on Golden Plates like the Book of Mormon (or the KJV for some others). So many use the Bible but forget Tradition. This is like a housewife buying a screwdriver to fix a car and then throwing out the owners manual (Tradition) for the car and just using the tool (i.e the Bible)?
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
Its amazing how so many people just think Scripture came down on Golden Plates like the Book of Mormon (or the KJV for some others).
Click to expand...
actually, i don’t know anyone who thinks this. ( i know you are probably kidding but it still belittles our separated brethren).
 
The Bible and Tradition are really one: two streams that both flow from the one source of revelation in the new covenant, Jesus Christ.
 
The New Testament is simply a COLLECTION of letters written to various churches, four biographies of Jesus, a short history of the beginning church and a grand revelation to the seven churches that existed in Asia during the lifetime of John. Many other writings surfaced after these apostolic writings. Such as the writing of Clement of Rome and the book of Enoch. I personally feel they should have been included.
But the whole point is, is that individual churches in the then known church world didn't have total access to all these writings I mentioned above. So most were passed on by word of mouth or the oral traditions within the churches themselves. It was not until the 3rd century that all these writings were collected and canonized into what we call the New Testament of today.
 
In the 2 Thessalonians 2:15 sense, the Bible was “traditioned” (handed over).
 
Some great replies so far, Thanks.

PS, By the way I meant in no way to belittle our protestant brothers. But the Mormons do believe the BOM was given to Joe on golden plates.
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
I was reading Exodus and discovered that the Jews had Tradition long before they wrote Scripture from their Tradition. The Catholic Church had Tradition plus the Jewish Sacred Scripture (Greek Septuigent) before the Chruch inked out the New Testament reflecting Tradition.

So, what are your thoughts on the similarities and is the Bible nothing but a sub-part of Catholic (which includes Jewish pre-Christ) Tradition?

Its amazing how so many people just think Scripture came down on Golden Plates like the Book of Mormon (or the KJV for some others). So many use the Bible but forget Tradition. This is like a housewife buying a screwdriver to fix a car and then throwing out the owners manual (Tradition) for the car and just using the tool (i.e the Bible)?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Bible is part of a Tradition larger than itself, of which it is an *encapsulation *or *crystallization, *so to speak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top