Must a Christian understand Jewish (Sacred) Tradition to understand the OT?

[Esdra]

Hi

many here have said that the Holy Bible can’t be understood without what they call Sacred Tradition.

Now there was also (Sacred) Tradition among the Jews managed by the Scribes and the Pharisees. And I guess we all know how much Jesus like their Traditions. (hint: Gospel according to St. Matthew).

Now, does a Christian need to know Jewish Sacred Tradition to understand the OT?
If yes, did the Gentiles which were ministered by St. Paul know Jewish Sacred Tradition? Were they then the worse Christians if they didn’t?

If no, why then does a Christian need to know (Christian) Sacred Tradition (at least if he wants to be a Catholic or an Orthodox)?
If for the Gentiles the “Holy Bible” (=Septuagint) together with the ministry of St. Paul was sufficient (and which then became the NT), why isn’t it sufficient anymore for modern day Christians? (Like sola scriptura Protestants claim.)

 

[ignatius777]

Hi

many here have said that the Holy Bible can’t be understood without what they call Sacred Tradition.

Now there was also (Sacred) Tradition among the Jews managed by the Scribes and the Pharisees. And I guess we all know how much Jesus like their Traditions. (hint: Gospel according to St. Matthew).

Now, does a Christian need to know Jewish Sacred Tradition to understand the OT?
If yes, did the Gentiles which were ministered by St. Paul know Jewish Sacred Tradition? Were they then the worse Christians if they didn’t?

If no, why then does a Christian need to know (Christian) Sacred Tradition (at least if he wants to be a Catholic or an Orthodox)?
If for the Gentiles the “Holy Bible” (=Septuagint) together with the ministry of St. Paul was sufficient (and which then became the NT), why isn’t it sufficient anymore for modern day Christians? (Like sola scriptura Protestants claim.)

Sola scriptura is not biblical. Why do protestants persist in following a non biblical belief?

 

[Barbkw]

For clarity, from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, the definition of Tradition:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#81

Tradition, 81

apostolic, 75-79
deposit of faith contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, 84, 97
of faith and prayer, 2651 (see also Prayer)
liturgy as a constitutive element of, 1124
one and the same content of, 174
oral tradition in the formation of the Gospels, 126
and Sacred Scripture, 80-83, 95, 97, 113, 120

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

Continued …

 

[Barbkw]

Page 2 or 2

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46

 

[ChadS]

Hi

many here have said that the Holy Bible can’t be understood without what they call Sacred Tradition.

Now there was also (Sacred) Tradition among the Jews managed by the Scribes and the Pharisees. And I guess we all know how much Jesus like their Traditions. (hint: Gospel according to St. Matthew).

Now, does a Christian need to know Jewish Sacred Tradition to understand the OT?
If yes, did the Gentiles which were ministered by St. Paul know Jewish Sacred Tradition? Were they then the worse Christians if they didn’t?

If no, why then does a Christian need to know (Christian) Sacred Tradition (at least if he wants to be a Catholic or an Orthodox)?
If for the Gentiles the “Holy Bible” (=Septuagint) together with the ministry of St. Paul was sufficient (and which then became the NT), why isn’t it sufficient anymore for modern day Christians? (Like sola scriptura Protestants claim.)

Understanding the Jewish roots of sacred scripture can be very profitable and Jewish tradition can help us to understand things that seem strange to 21st century people. However, to be a good Christian it is not necessary to know Jewish traditions about scripture inside and out. It’s more important for us as Christians to be intune with what the Church teaches on how to interpret the Old Testament in light of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

The first Christians were thoroughly Jewish and so would’ve been well-versed in Jewish scripture traditions. Remember, that the first Christians worshipped in the synagogue and then would meet afterwards for their own meetings. They saw no disconnect between their Jewish faith and their belief in Christ.

Christian traditions have always been part of the Church. According to Catholic teaching it has the same origins, the Holy Spirit, as written scriptures do. It was only at the Protestant Reformation that it was first proposed that tradition wasn’t as important as scripture. Since then Protestants have continously denigrated tradition and went one step further than the reformers and said tradition has no place in church life. Many have read this modern view back on history and then insist the early Christians were all proto-Protestants.

My answer is no you don’t need to know tons of Jewish scripture tradition but knowing a little can’t hurt. Christian traditions have always been a part of the Church and it’s important to know that tradition and realize it’s part of the sacred deposit intrusted to the Church by the Holy Spirit.

ChadS

 

[MarkBrown]

Hi

many here have said that the Holy Bible can’t be understood without what they call Sacred Tradition.

Now there was also (Sacred) Tradition among the Jews managed by the Scribes and the Pharisees. And I guess we all know how much Jesus like their Traditions. (hint: Gospel according to St. Matthew).

Now, does a Christian need to know Jewish Sacred Tradition to understand the OT?
If yes, did the Gentiles which were ministered by St. Paul know Jewish Sacred Tradition? Were they then the worse Christians if they didn’t?

If no, why then does a Christian need to know (Christian) Sacred Tradition (at least if he wants to be a Catholic or an Orthodox)?
If for the Gentiles the “Holy Bible” (=Septuagint) together with the ministry of St. Paul was sufficient (and which then became the NT), why isn’t it sufficient anymore for modern day Christians? (Like sola scriptura Protestants claim.)

Esdra,

Jesus’ attitude toward some of the Pharisees’ traditions does not mean Jesus rejected all tradition. The Holy Mother and Joseph made the proper sacrifice upon His birth. Jesus, as recounted in Scripture, kept the Law. He did it perfectly since he wrote the Law and therefore understood it better than the Pharisees.

An understanding of the the Jewish traditions and theology will help a Christian understand his/her own faith. When we read the scripture we recieved from the Jews, which is pretty much all our scripture even the NT as the majority of the NT writers were Jewish, we should try to read it with through a Jewish lens. As a Baptist I thought purgatory was something made up by Catholics and was totally unscriptural. When I began to read about Jewish tradition and eschatology I suddenly “discovered” puragtory was a continuation of certain Jewish beliefs on the afterlife, punishment etc. The Gehenna Jesus talks about in the Gospels is the Gehinnom of Jewish eschatology. When Jesus tells the thief he will be in paradise with him today, as a Baptist I understood heaven. Jewish eschatolotgy divides She’ol with paradise as a place in She’ol the righteous await the Messiah. This then helped me to understand why in the Apostles Creed it talked about Jesus descending into Hell, St Peter telling us he set the captives free. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man makes more sense. The OT passages describe Heaven with usually just God and the Angels. The NT, has the righteous. Heaven is now more than God and Angels. Makes sense as Jesus, the Messiah, fullfilled Jewish ecshatolotgy. (and before anyone goes on, Jewish eschatolotgy can be as diversity as Christian…another tradition we kept.)

So understanding some of the Jewish traditions helps. I understand the Eurcharist better by understanding Passover better.

Did St Paul and all the Apostles teach Jewish tradition and theology. Of course. They taught the early gentiles about God, Christ the Holy Spirit. They used Jewish traditions. Understand the majority of the early Christians were Jewish, They went to Temple and Synagogue. They also met on the First day of the week. This continued until 70 AD when Christianity seperated.

Not understanding the fullness of the faith does not make you a poor Christian. I would say understanding and rejecting would.

You also make a mistake many Christian make. At the time of the early Church there were no official scriptures. Either Jewish or Christian. The Offical Jewish scriptures did not exist until the 2nd century. A little reading on the subject will reveal the struggle our Jewish friends had in establishing the official scripture. Christian scripture was not codified until Nicea and again at Trent. St Paul was not the only Apostle writing what would become our scriptures. There were also Bishops, monks and theologians who wrote many letters and instructions on the faith floating around the Church. Papias, St Clement of Rome and St Clement of Alexandria. The Didache was a handbook for the Church teaching on Eucharist, Baptism and even abortion.

The composition of the NT was based in part upon tradition. Read Eusebius The History of the Church. It was written in the 4th Century and chronciles the movement and history of the Church from Jesus to around Nicea. It teaches about the formation of the scriptures. An older and in some cases outdates book, Eerdmans History of Christianity, chronciles the use of scriptures at various stages of Christianity up to Nicea. It gives which specific scriptures were used at certain times.

I could go on, but hopefully I got my point across. We need tradition, Jewish and Christian, to have a better understanding of our faith and our God. For me it makes scripture more alive and explains some of those difficult passages.

Fr. Mark

 

[Orogeny]

Now there was also (Sacred) Tradition among the Jews managed by the Scribes and the Pharisees. And I guess we all know how much Jesus like their Traditions. (hint: Gospel according to St. Matthew).

You mean like being circumcised, being offered to the Lord as first born, celebrating Passover, etc…?

Now, does a Christian need to know Jewish Sacred Tradition to understand the OT?

It sure helps understand why things happened like they did, but one can understand the theological teachings without knowing the tradition behind the writing.

If yes, did the Gentiles which were ministered by St. Paul know Jewish Sacred Tradition? Were they then the worse Christians if they didn’t?

I would suggest that many of the gentiles did not know much about Jewish tradition, but I don’t understand how you get to “worse Christians” from that.

If no, why then does a Christian need to know (Christian) Sacred Tradition (at least if he wants to be a Catholic or an Orthodox)?

Because the scriptures alone are insufficient. Do you think that St. Paul wrote down everything he ever taught to the churches he founded? If not, were his spoken words of any value? How about the teachings of the apostles, most of whom we don’t have written documentation from?

If for the Gentiles the “Holy Bible” (=Septuagint) together with the ministry of St. Paul was sufficient (and which then became the NT), why isn’t it sufficient anymore for modern day Christians? (Like sola scriptura Protestants claim.)

Well, as already explained, the Holy Bible wasn’t around during the time of St. Paul. That being said, do the Gospels have any value to you? You do know, don’t you, that St. Paul did not have the Gospels (at least not the written versions from the four evangelists) when he was spreading the faith? If St. Paul’s teaching and the Old Testament is all that is needed, where do the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John fit in? How about Acts, Peter, John, Jude or Revelation?

Peace

Tim

 

[Barbkw]

…many here have said that the Holy Bible can’t be understood without what they call Sacred Tradition. Now there was also (Sacred) Tradition among the Jews managed by the Scribes and the Pharisees. And I guess we all know how much Jesus like their Traditions. (hint: Gospel according to St. Matthew).

Now, does a Christian need to know Jewish Sacred Tradition to understand the OT?
If yes, did the Gentiles which were ministered by St. Paul know Jewish Sacred Tradition? Were they then the worse Christians if they didn’t?

If no, why then does a Christian need to know (Christian) Sacred Tradition (at least if he wants to be a Catholic or an Orthodox)?
If for the Gentiles the “Holy Bible” (=Septuagint) together with the ministry of St. Paul was sufficient (and which then became the NT), why isn’t it sufficient anymore for modern day Christians? (Like sola scriptura Protestants claim.)

On another BB, I had a discussion with a group of pagans who had abandoned Christianity and were publically pronouncing that Jesus was a good man and teacher but not God.

One of the pagans said that the “story” concerning Herod the Great was rediculous, that Herod would not have killed babies.

I knew enough about Herod from watching the program “The Naked Archeologist” to know that Herod was a murderously jealous power hungry interloper who used Judaism as a way to gain a Kingship with Rome.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariamne_(second_wife_of_Herod

Herod the Great killed his Jewish wife (the last of the Hasmonian royal line of Jews), their two children together, his wife’s brother, and his wife’s mother.

Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, killed John the Baptist.

Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, imprisoned Peter in Acts 12.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi

many here have said that the Holy Bible can’t be understood without what they call Sacred Tradition.

Now there was also (Sacred) Tradition among the Jews managed by the Scribes and the Pharisees. And I guess we all know how much Jesus like their Traditions. (hint: Gospel according to St. Matthew).

Now, does a Christian need to know Jewish Sacred Tradition to understand the OT?
If yes, did the Gentiles which were ministered by St. Paul know Jewish Sacred Tradition? Were they then the worse Christians if they didn’t?

If no, why then does a Christian need to know (Christian) Sacred Tradition (at least if he wants to be a Catholic or an Orthodox)?
If for the Gentiles the “Holy Bible” (=Septuagint) together with the ministry of St. Paul was sufficient (and which then became the NT), why isn’t it sufficient anymore for modern day Christians? (Like sola scriptura Protestants claim.)

You’ll be surprised that much of the New Testament is also understood in the context of many Jewish traditions and practices.

Sacred Tradition is practices established within the context of other non-Jewish cultures so they can understand the faith in their own terms. That is why Roman Catholics would have different practices of the same faith with that of Byzantine Catholics.

 

[Barbkw]

As a Catholic, it’s been very helpful for me to understand the ceremonial importance of the Temple Mount and the Jewish festivals because they both have significant relationships to to Jesus’ Passion and to our Sacraments.

 

[Publisher]

Hi

many here have said that the Holy Bible can’t be understood without what they call Sacred Tradition.

Now there was also (Sacred) Tradition among the Jews managed by the Scribes and the Pharisees. And I guess we all know how much Jesus like their Traditions. (hint: Gospel according to St. Matthew).

Now, does a Christian need to know Jewish Sacred Tradition to understand the OT?
If yes, did the Gentiles which were ministered by St. Paul know Jewish Sacred Tradition? Were they then the worse Christians if they didn’t?

If no, why then does a Christian need to know (Christian) Sacred Tradition (at least if he wants to be a Catholic or an Orthodox)?
If for the Gentiles the “Holy Bible” (=Septuagint) together with the ministry of St. Paul was sufficient (and which then became the NT), why isn’t it sufficient anymore for modern day Christians? (Like sola scriptura Protestants claim.)

For me, studying the times and culture from which the scriptures came from is indeed a great tool for understanding the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

The “Why” certain beliefs were developed through their textual evolution certainly help understanding what the New Testament writers were seeking to convey when one seeks to understand Judaism of that time.

 

[Esdra]

You mean like being circumcised, being offered to the Lord as first born, celebrating Passover, etc…?

No, not really. As this is to be found in the Jewish Scriptures and thus it is no Tradition anymore, isn’t it?
No, I am more referring to the “Pharisees Tradition” which Jesus so much disliked!
I know that the offering of the first born and the circumcision were fulfilled in Christ and thus not needed anymore, btw. Well, and the Passover became the Lord’s Supper. (As Jesus institued the Lord’s Supper on the Passover feast).
Btw, I have once been in an Evangelical Church (Lutheran and Reformed united) and they did “celebrate” the passover on Maunday Thursday. Very intersting and a nice tradition IMO. (As they told me they do so every Easter.)

It sure helps understand why things happened like they did, but one can understand the theological teachings without knowing the tradition behind the writing.

I would suggest that many of the gentiles did not know much about Jewish tradition, but I don’t understand how you get to “worse Christians” from that.

I also think so.

Because the scriptures alone are insufficient. Do you think that St. Paul wrote down everything he ever taught to the churches he founded? If not, were his spoken words of any value? How about the teachings of the apostles, most of whom we don’t have written documentation from?

In my opinion they are fully sufficient. The NT contains all relevant teachings of Jesus (and his disciples in the Letters).

Well, as already explained, the Holy Bible wasn’t around during the time of St. Paul. That being said, do the Gospels have any value to you? You do know, don’t you, that St. Paul did not have the Gospels (at least not the written versions from the four evangelists) when he was spreading the faith? If St. Paul’s teaching and the Old Testament is all that is needed, where do the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John fit in? How about Acts, Peter, John, Jude or Revelation?

Actually, I do think that the Septuagint (maybe even in the form of a Codex) **was **available to St. Paul or St. Matthew (or in fact any other NT author!). And for me the Septuagint was the first “Bible”. According to St. Luke’s Acts even in the founded Churches there was at least one Septuagint. (cf. Acts 17:11)
Well, and in my opinion, as stated above, what was at the time of the Early Christians Tradition, became in the Councils of Carthage and Rome what we call now the New Testament.
By the way: I recently read that St. Paul himself told St. Luke to write his Gospel (and he then later on wrote Acts).
The first parts of the what we call now NT WERE the letters of the Apostles and other authors we now have in the NT. - Thus they are also more reliable as they are younger than the Gospels.

It’s really strange that many here seem to believe that the first Christians didn’t have a Bible at all until the said councils.
But the Septuagint already existed (and most surely even in book form - as a codex!).

 

[Orogeny]

In my opinion they are fully sufficient. The NT contains all relevant teachings of Jesus (and his disciples in the Letters).

Are you suggesting that some of Jesus’ teachings were irrelevant?

Actually, I do think that the Septuagint (maybe even in the form of a Codex) **was **available to St. Paul or St. Matthew (or in fact any other NT author!). And for me the Septuagint was the first “Bible”. According to St. Luke’s Acts even in the founded Churches there was at least one Septuagint. (cf. Acts 17:11)

Yes, the Septuagint was available. I didn’t say that there were no scriptures, I said that there was not Holy Bible. You do understand the difference, right?

Well, and in my opinion, as stated above, what was at the time of the Early Christians Tradition, became in the Councils of Carthage and Rome what we call now the New Testament.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your statement, but the Septuagint did not become the New Testament, nor did tradition become the New Testament.

By the way: I recently read that St. Paul himself told St. Luke to write his Gospel (and he then later on wrote Acts).

I don’t know where you read that, but I’m not sure how that is relevant to the discussion.

The first parts of the what we call now NT WERE the letters of the Apostles and other authors we now have in the NT. - Thus they are also more reliable as they are younger than the Gospels.

Wait a minute. The Gospels are not reliable? Which parts?

It’s really strange that many here seem to believe that the first Christians didn’t have a Bible at all until the said councils.
But the Septuagint already existed (and most surely even in book form - as a codex!).

Nit picking point, but there were no books at that time. The Septuagint was available as scrolls.

Would you consider the Old Testament by itself to be the Bible? I don’t. I consider it to be scripture, but when you say Bible, I (and I think most here) think of the Old and New Testaments together as the Bible. Interestingly, Catholics include the entire Septuagint, but protestants don’t. Was the Septuagint the Bible? If you think so, why did protestants change it 1,500 years after the time of Christ?

Peace

Tim

 

[Barbkw]

I watched a program last night about the “Abrahamic religions”. Judaism, Christianity, Islam.

It was interesting, the presenters commented that the study of the Old Testament for Jews is a study about the incorporation of Jewish Law into everyday life. They showed a Jewish group of men studying to become Rabbis. The students were arguing law, similar to a classroom of case or appellate lawyers.

 

[Esdra]

Are you suggesting that some of Jesus’ teachings were irrelevant? Yes, the Septuagint was available. I didn’t say that there were no scriptures; I said that there was not Holy Bible. You do understand the difference, right? Maybe I am misunderstanding your statement, but the Septuagint did not become the New Testament, nor did tradition become the New Testament. I don’t know where you read that, but I’m not sure how that is relevant to the discussion. Wait a minute. The Gospels are not reliable? Which parts? Nit picking point, but there were no books at that time. The Septuagint was available as scrolls.

No, no teaching of Jesus is irrelevant. It says in the NT. But the LXX was the “Bible” of the First Christians and that was my point.
I believe what we call now NT was indeed Tradition in the sense that it was orally passed on but then was (mainly in the Gospels) written down so that everybody can read about Jesus and His life and ministry on Earth.
I guess the thing with the Gospel of St. Luke I read in a commentary to the NT. - 'Though not sure…
Of course they are reliable, but not in that extant as the Letters. Do you know the game Chinese whisperers? I think you know now what I mean.
I am pretty sure that at the time of the First Christians the LXX was in a Codex which is very similar to a book nowadays. The thing with the scrolls refer more to the Hebrew (and Aramaic) Scriptures of the OT. And as far as I know the authors of the NT throughout used the LXX and not the original Hebrew scrolls when quoting the OT!

Would you consider the Old Testament by itself to be the Bible? I don’t. I consider it to be scripture, but when you say Bible, I (and I think most here) think of the Old and New Testaments together as the Bible. Interestingly, Catholics include the entire Septuagint, but protestants don’t. Was the Septuagint the Bible? If you think so, why did protestants change it 1,500 years after the time of Christ?

No, see above.
The LXX was the “Bible” in the sense of “Holy Scriptures” for the first Christians.
Our Bible of course consists of the OT AND the NT.
No, Catholics DON’T include the entire LXX. (I researched that quite thoroughly after getting to know that the Russian Orthodox Church uses a broader deuterocanon! Please refer here.)
The Protestants use the Tanach as the OT because they say that the canonicity of the deuterocanonical Books have always been doubtful. They say that even St. Jerome didn’t see them as fully canonical and thus put them at the end of the OT.
Even in my Russian Orthodox Bible the deuterocanonical books are referred to as “nie kanonicheskye knigi” (= non canonical books).
But you are right, the LXX was most definitely the “Bible” until the councils where the OT and NT canon were fixed. [This is also the reason why I recently bought myself the entire LXX in German which was published last year by the Board of Evangelical Churches in Germany (which consists of Lutheran and Reformed Churches).]

Peace

Tim

In Christ,

 

[benidict]

Hi

many here have said that the Holy Bible can’t be understood without what they call Sacred Tradition.

Now there was also (Sacred) Tradition among the Jews managed by the Scribes and the Pharisees. And I guess we all know how much Jesus like their Traditions. (hint: Gospel according to St. Matthew).

Now, does a Christian need to know Jewish Sacred Tradition to understand the OT?
If yes, did the Gentiles which were ministered by St. Paul know Jewish Sacred Tradition? Were they then the worse Christians if they didn’t?

If no, why then does a Christian need to know (Christian) Sacred Tradition (at least if he wants to be a Catholic or an Orthodox)?
If for the Gentiles the “Holy Bible” (=Septuagint) together with the ministry of St. Paul was sufficient (and which then became the NT), why isn’t it sufficient anymore for modern day Christians? (Like sola scriptura Protestants claim.)

hello my friend. i dont even think a Christian can get a clear understanding of Christ or Christianity, without studying Judaism. and a study of midrash and talmud, not to mention kabballah certainly helps. it is my understanding you are from somewhere in europe. in the u.s. most people look at Christianity from more of a western mindset. this has led to a host of errors in areas such as prophecy and such. it really helps to approach the bible, from more of a Jewish mindset. just my thoughts. Peace

 

[Esdra]

hello my friend. i dont even think a Christian can get a clear understanding of Christ or Christianity, without studying Judaism. and a study of midrash and talmud, not to mention kabballah certainly helps. it is my understanding you are from somewhere in europe. in the u.s. most people look at Christianity from more of a western mindset. this has led to a host of errors in areas such as prophecy and such. it really helps to approach the bible, from more of a Jewish mindset. just my thoughts. Peace

Hi friend,

how you doing in Iraq?

What is Jewish Tradition for you? Is it “our” Old Testament, or are there also other parts worth studying?

 

[PJM]

=Esdra;7510995]Hi

many here have said that the Holy Bible can’t be understood without what they call Sacred Tradition.

Now there was also (Sacred) Tradition among the Jews managed by the Scribes and the Pharisees. And I guess we all know how much Jesus like their Traditions. (hint: Gospel according to St. Matthew).

Now, does a Christian need to know Jewish Sacred Tradition to understand the OT?
If yes, did the Gentiles which were ministered by St. Paul know Jewish Sacred Tradition? Were they then the worse Christians if they didn’t?

If no, why then does a Christian need to know (Christian) Sacred Tradition (at least if he wants to be a Catholic or an Orthodox)?
If for the Gentiles the “Holy Bible” (=Septuagint) together with the ministry of St. Paul was sufficient (and which then became the NT), why isn’t it sufficient anymore for modern day Christians? (Like sola scriptura Protestants claim.)

The short answer is YES!

Here is WHY…

The O.T. had two primary objectives. 1. To relate the historical background of the Hebrew Nation and there practices. It also relates there introducton to Yahweh, as well as tehre inter-action with Him. 2. Prophesies, many of which were fulfilled AND PERPECTED in the Life of Christ, in the N.T.

Some of the “mystery” of the N.T. mandates and instruction are much easier understood by looking first at former practices articulated in the O.T. There exit a great deal of typology that is beneficial to explianing the actions and commands of Christ.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[agent_grey]

Understanding the OT testament is like understanding greek mythology. its all smoke and mirrors.

Hebrew mythology is no different.

Or do you honestly believe that Jesus commanded the mass execution of entire civilizations(man woman child) all the while commanding the virgin woman be taken as a spoil? Do you really think God ever spoke such a sinfull and dispicable act be carried out?

Ya right…

Diety 1 says “you shalt not kill”
Diety 2 says “killem all”

2 very different “Gods” with 2 very different spirits diometrically oppsed to one another.

The day some rat wannabe prophet ever spoke to the children of israel to engage in such acts of genocide as documented in the bible the Children of Israel should have said “we do not serve your false diety for the true God has already comanded us and said you shalt not kill”

 

[PJM]

=agent_grey;7516939]Understanding the OT testament is like understanding greek mythology. its all smoke and mirrors.

Hebrew mythology is no different.

Or do you honestly believe that Jesus commanded the mass execution of entire civilizations(man woman child) all the while commanding the virgin woman be taken as a spoil? Do you really think God ever spoke such a sinfull and dispicable act be carried out?

Ya right…

Diety 1 says “you shalt not kill”
Diety 2 says “killem all”

2 very different “Gods” with 2 very different spirits diometrically oppsed to one another.

The day some rat wannabe prophet ever spoke to the children of israel to engage in such acts of genocide as documented in the bible the Children of Israel should have said “we do not serve your false diety for the true God has already comanded us and said you shalt not kill”

Have you heard of Paul Harvey’s "This is the Rest of the story?"

If one does not read carefully the Entire Bible; such a one migh come away with an incorrect understanding. Not so much “wrong” but certainly sufficiently incomplete as to reach an incorrect and incomplete conclusion.

A Diety; Yahweh-God did factually commanded killing an entire people. WHY?

Isaiah 55:8-9 explains why this is easy to do… [8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, " neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

The second reason might be that we are so shocked that God would issue such a command that we might not seek to understand the WHY?

In EVERY case Yahweh was looking out to purify, protect and insure [as much as possible] the new belief in ONE GOD. The Hebrew Nation needed to be pyhsically seperated from heathen PAGAN peoples, to lessen temptations, as God was weening them from Paganism to belief in "I AM YOUR GOD; and YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER.!

They were by culture too prone to go back to old way’s; old practices." So from God’s persepective it seems God choose both THE GREATER GOOD, AN THE LESSER EVIL. Which tells us VOLUMES about how importantly, God sees Faithful Worship of Himself.

God Bless,
Pat