Scripture vs Tradition

[Ginger2]

Actually Ginger, you have that backwards and he is correct.

My point is that God always comes first. These men did not write on the own, but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The books that survived thru time survived because God wanted it so. Those that are thought by humans to be inspoired, but left out of the Bible because a complete copy can’t be found and not enough fragments can be found to recreate a complete copy is because God didn’t allow them to be preserved.

 

[Ginger2]

Sean Boyle

We are not directly talking about the canon - it seems to be a by-product of the topic.

 

[Church_Militant]

My point is that God always comes first. These men did not write on the own, but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The books that survived thru time survived because God wanted it so. Those that are thought by humans to be inspoired, but left out of the Bible because a complete copy can’t be found and not enough fragments can be found to recreate a complete copy is because God didn’t allow them to be preserved.

No arguments from Catholics on the essentials there, however, (You knew that was coming though didn’t you? ) the fact is that the Deuterocanonicals are quoted in the New Testament as evidenced here.

And with regard to the point you make that there were not fragments of manuscripts of these books is erroneous.

Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew (Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees,) or Aramaic (Tobit). These are significant and noteworthy because it proves that some of these books were in circulation in Palestine and were accepted by Jewish groups there. It was once thought that the deuterocanonical books in the Alexandrian canon had been composed in Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic.

(Link)

 

[Ginger2]

And with regard to the point you make that there were not fragments of manuscripts of these books is erroneous. (Link)

I didn’t say the Deuterocanonicals were in fragments. I said there are books that might fit the criteria for being inspired but, because a complete copy can not be recreated, those books could not be considered for inclusion of the canon.

The point is the God did not preserve them, therefore even tho they may have qualified as inspired, it was God who ensured they would not be included.

That’s a clumbsy explanation, but you get the point.

 

[Church_Militant]

I didn’t say the Deuterocanonicals were in fragments. I said there are books that might fit the criteria for being inspired but, because a complete copy can not be recreated, those books could not be considered for inclusion of the canon.

The point is the God did not preserve them, therefore even tho they may have qualified as inspired, it was God who ensured they would not be included.

That’s a clumbsy explanation, but you get the point.

I understand. Of course the other point to that is that the Church did indeed preserve them and therefore, since they were accepted by the early church and dogmatically affirmed by the Council of Trent, then they certainly do belong in the canon and as such God has preserved them.

 

[Ginger2]

I understand. Of course the other point to that is that the Church did indeed preserve them and therefore, since they were accepted by the early church and dogmatically affirmed by the Council of Trent, then they certainly do belong in the canon and as such God has preserved them.

Well, that gets a little touchy there…

The Church did not specifically save certain books and let the others fall into decay. If that were so, then there would have not been differing opinions as to which books should be canonized.

 

[Lev23]

Actually Ginger, you have that backwards and he is correct.

This is sort of a “chicken or egg” point. Y’see, who, actually wrote the New Testament? The early church right? Not even all of it was written by the apostles because Luke and Mark were not, and they are pretty sure that Hebrews was not written by Paul though many n-Cs think so.

My point is that since that is the case, then the New Testament (and in fact the whole Bible, if you think of the “church” as having included the Jews who wrote the Old Testament) originated (at least 20-30 years later!) from the oral teachings of the church and not the other way round.

There is a very good Bible study available on on a free MP3 download from my friend John Martignoni here. that I will highly recommend to you.

Come on CM! The oral teachings of the early Church always lead back to the scriptures and had their foundation in scriptures. These scriptures could mostly be found in synagogues. They Apostles never departed from the synagogues but went there to teach Jesus from the scriptures. If the Apostles preached Jesus to the Jews from another source other than the Jewish scriptures, could we blame them for rejecting their testimony?

Generally speaking, the Gospels told the testimony of and showed Jesus as the prophesied Messiah. Prophecies from where? The OT scriptures. The Gospel writers also proved Jesus himself never departed from the scriptures, from his parables to what he told his Apostles what must happen to him. The book of Acts proves to the reader the early Church preached to the world from the scriptures. The epistles to the Churches brings them in mind to the OT scriptures and quotes from them extensively.

So it is pretty safe to say the NT are generally instructions for the Church to enter the Kingdom. Where was the Kingdom prophesied about? The OT scriptures. When Jesus spoke “the Kingdom of Heaven is near”, the listeners knew what Kingdom he spoke of or at least could go to the synagogue, where the scriptures were, to read for themselves or inquire what the scriptures said of the Kingdom.

The “oral tradition” of the early Church always brought people back to the Word of God and never taught some strange new doctrine.

Please pass this along to your friend, John Martignoni.

 

[Janet_S]

Come on CM! The oral teachings of the early Church always lead back to the scriptures and had their foundation in scriptures. These scriptures could mostly be found in synagogues. They Apostles never departed from the synagogues but went there to teach Jesus from the scriptures. If the Apostles preached Jesus to the Jews from another source other than the Jewish scriptures, could we blame them for rejecting their testimony?

Generally speaking, the Gospels told the testimony of and showed Jesus as the prophesied Messiah. Prophecies from where? The OT scriptures. The Gospel writers also proved Jesus himself never departed from the scriptures, from his parables to what he told his Apostles what must happen to him. The book of Acts proves to the reader the early Church preached to the world from the scriptures. The epistles to the Churches brings them in mind to the OT scriptures and quotes from them extensively.

So it is pretty safe to say the NT are generally instructions for the Church to enter the Kingdom. Where was the Kingdom prophesied about? The OT scriptures. When Jesus spoke “the Kingdom of Heaven is near”, the listeners knew what Kingdom he spoke of or at least could go to the synagogue, where the scriptures were, to read for themselves or inquire what the scriptures said of the Kingdom.

The “oral tradition” of the early Church always brought people back to the Word of God and never taught some strange new doctrine.

Please pass this along to your friend, John Martignoni.

Just a few things to point out.

Don’t you think the whole idea of a man becoming God, God being 3 persons, and God dying for love of the world was a “strange new doctrine” for a lot of people living in Jesus’ time? Considering that, I don’t think you can make the claim that the early Church never taught some strange new doctrine. In Apostolic times, it was something new and it must have seemed strange to a lot of the Jews. The Christians used the same OT Scripture as the Jews, but they had a radically different view of the meaning of that Scripture in light of Jesus’ coming. If the early Church operated on “Scripture alone”, and the Jews and Christians shared the same Scripture, why did they come to different beliefs about Jesus?

I agree with you that Scripture is very important. More importantly, the Catholic Church agrees with you. If you don’t believe me, just read the Catechism, any Church Council documents, or papal encyclicals and you will see they are grounded on Scripture.

But another thing to keep in mind–throughout the history of the Church heretics have appealed to Scripture too. Look at the Marcionites, the Arians, and the modernists today. Even Satan himself appeals to Scripture, so there has to be something more. The Bible tells us it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

And one final thing, I guess you don’t care much for John Martignoni. But he sure knows his Bible, doesn’t he.

 

[Janet_S]

My point is that God always comes first. These men did not write on the own, but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The books that survived thru time survived because God wanted it so. Those that are thought by humans to be inspoired, but left out of the Bible because a complete copy can’t be found and not enough fragments can be found to recreate a complete copy is because God didn’t allow them to be preserved.

I never heard this version of “how we got the canon” before. Is this what you were taught or did you just assume this?

 

[Church_Militant]

Well, that gets a little touchy there…

The Church did not specifically save certain books and let the others fall into decay. If that were so, then there would have not been differing opinions as to which books should be canonized.

Ginger, that’s not really the point. The point is that the 73 book canon that Catholics have today is the same one that all the early church lists enumerate. It is the same canon that was maintained and accepted for the 1200 years until the reformers attacked it and the Council of Trent dogmatically defined it.

 

[Church_Militant]

Come on CM! The oral teachings of the early Church always lead back to the scriptures and had their foundation in scriptures. These scriptures could mostly be found in synagogues. They Apostles never departed from the synagogues but went there to teach Jesus from the scriptures. If the Apostles preached Jesus to the Jews from another source other than the Jewish scriptures, could we blame them for rejecting their testimony?

Not the point. Even the Old Testament began as oral tradition before anything was written down by Moses and the other OT authors.

Your statement that the apostles never departed from the temple is not supported by either the New Testament nor Christian history. There did indeed come a point in the New Testament church where we no longer attended synagogue and especially when the Church believed, taught and practiced the Eucharist, something that could never have been done in the synagogue. That and the fact that the Jews very quickly insured that any believers were persecuted.

Generally speaking, the Gospels told the testimony of and showed Jesus as the prophesied Messiah. Prophecies from where? The OT scriptures. The Gospel writers also proved Jesus himself never departed from the scriptures, from his parables to what he told his Apostles what must happen to him. The book of Acts proves to the reader the early Church preached to the world from the scriptures. The epistles to the Churches brings them in mind to the OT scriptures and quotes from them extensively.

Odd you should point that out since they also extensively quote the Septuagint version of the OT and included the Deuterocanonical books in their quotes.

So it is pretty safe to say the NT are generally instructions for the Church to enter the Kingdom. Where was the Kingdom prophesied about? The OT scriptures. When Jesus spoke “the Kingdom of Heaven is near”, the listeners knew what Kingdom he spoke of or at least could go to the synagogue, where the scriptures were, to read for themselves or inquire what the scriptures said of the Kingdom.

The “oral tradition” of the early Church always brought people back to the Word of God and never taught some strange new doctrine.

Really? I beg to differ. To this day the Jews do not accept the divinity of Christ. So far as they are concerned, this is a blasphemous teaching, so your assertion is Biblically incorrect.

The fact is that all of scripture began its life as oral tradition, but nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that it is intended to be the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for believers, and you cannot produce scripture to specifically support this. However the New Testament does indeed tell us that the pillar and ground of the truth is the church while also telling us to carefully study to show ourselves approved unto God, rightly handling the word of truth, but not telling us that that study should be limited to the scriptures. And this was to Timothy, Paul’s closest disciple.

Please pass this along to your friend, John Martignoni.

You do it, John answers e-mails and his phone.

 

[mgrfin]

I never heard this version of “how we got the canon” before. Is this what you were taught or did you just assume this?

Picture, if you will, the Holy Spirit hovering over the sacred writers, dictating as it were word for word what was to be put on parchment.

Of course, it didn’t happen like that. The sacred authors were protected from writing doctrinal errors, but numbers and historical facts - well they were protected from doctrinal error only, not scientific, numberical, etc.

I also don’t see angels running about destroying parchment pieces so that these non-canonical books didn’t make it. The canon as we have it came from the Catholic Church. And like any other belief open for discussion within the Church, I am sure there were probably some battles as to what should have been included.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

I never heard this version of “how we got the canon” before. Is this what you were taught or did you just assume this?

My comments are not meant to represent history.

I was merely expressing that God is in control.

BTW I haven’t had much time for blogging, lately. I wanted to tell you that you have a very beautiful and eloquent way of expressing your faith. Happy Thanksgiving!

mgrfin:

I also don’t see angels running about destroying parchment pieces so that these non-canonical books didn’t make it.

There is a difference between
God allowing natural decay from time,

and

God deliberately destroying something -whether by “angels” or natural disaster.

 

[Ginger2]

…they also extensively quote the Septuagint version of the OT and included the Deuterocanonical books in their quotes.

I don’t believe they quoted from Deuterocanonical books.

Some of the quotes could have also come from the OT. Not once that I have read in Scriptures that Jesus or any Apostle cited from these books as a source for their quotes that the Catholics attribute to the Deuterocanonical books.

Jude quoting Enoch is generally held out as proof, but the book of Enoch is pseudepigraphal and therefore, cannot be the source of the quote.

As for the Deuterocanonical books,

Just because a book mentions a real event in history or a real quote here or there, doesn’t mean the entire book is accurate or truthful.

 

[Janet_S]

My comments are not meant to represent history.

I was merely expressing that God is in control.

My point is that God always comes first. These men did not write on the own, but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The books that survived thru time survived because God wanted it so. Those that are thought by humans to be inspoired, but left out of the Bible because a complete copy can’t be found and not enough fragments can be found to recreate a complete copy is because God didn’t allow them to be preserved.

I agree, God is in control. He is the creator of the universe, and without Him we would not exist. He can work miracles, and He does work miracles, but not every action of God can be attributed to a supernatural miracle.

The miraculous version of how we got the Bible you just described is not true. The mere fact that a book has been preserved in its totality through time is not proof of its inspiration. For example, we still have the writings of Aristotle and Plato, and no Christian believes these works are inspired.

You admit that your comments are not meant to represent history, and you are right, they don’t. The real history is this–God established a Church that wrote, protected, faithfully translated, and recopied Holy Scripture for 2000 years. It was God’s actions, but He worked through real people not through miracles. The only thing supernatural about God’s methods for preserving Holy Scripture was His establishment of the Church to carry out His work.

 

[mgrfin]

Well, that gets a little touchy there…

The Church did not specifically save certain books and let the others fall into decay. If that were so, then there would have not been differing opinions as to which books should be canonized.

How do you know any of this, Ginger. I assume you are not a Scriptural historian, and your ‘church’ doesn’t have an opinion on this. So you seem to be gassing us.

I would really like to say, at this point, you don’t know cause it is not written in the bible. The guiding theology is “the bible says it is so”. If it is not written in the Bible, then it is not true, cause your ‘church’ doesn’t have a magisterium. True of most of the opinions you hold. The opposite of the Catholic position is always a safe position.

peace

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think you meant to say that. The dogma of the Church is supposed to be based on God’s word - which is found in the Scriptures.

I meant that EXACTLY as I said it. The Dogma of the Church originates in the Teaching of Jesus. This Teaching was passed orally, and was preserved and promulgated by the Apostles. The Scritptures, written at various times later (2-7 decades) reflect the Apostolic Teaching. The Dogma is based on the Divine Revelation, given to us once and for all through Jesus. This Revelation is reflected in the Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t believe they quoted from Deuterocanonical books.

Some of the quotes could have also come from the OT. Not once that I have read in Scriptures that Jesus or any Apostle cited from these books as a source for their quotes that the Catholics attribute to the Deuterocanonical books.

They did. There are many quotes in the NT that used the Deutrocanonical Books.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42

Heb. 12:12 - the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make “His paths straight.” Hebrew - make “level in the desert a highway.”

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.

Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.

Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.

Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).

Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has “perfect praise.” Hebrew - thou has “established strength.”

 

[Ginger2]

Since I was busy with the Thanksgiving Holiday, I am going to try, with one post, to briefly get up to date.

The Holy Spirit guided prophets and Apostles when they wrote the Scriptures.

God was and is in control. Despite any spurious writings that sprang up since Jesus’ resurrection, God speaks to us and gives us a way to tell truth from fiction from within. But that has to do with our freewill.

Those who truly seek God will not be deceived in the end. God will give opportunity to those who seek to recreate God in their own image, but in the end they will find what they are truly seeking - deception.

Early Christians made copies of inspired writings. How did they know the writings were inspired? Because they knew who the Apostles were and were given proofs that they were men of God.

In this respect, I agree that the Scriptures were given to the Church. Where I disagree is in the meaning of “Church” and that Tradition is the only way to understand what the Scriptures mean.

Rather it is the Holy Scriptures that define what Tradition teaches. The Holy Scriptures are the very word of God. All Tradition must be compatible with Scripture.

When a disagreement arises, humans should look to God for the truth - not to human beings. Even Paul did not expect those he taught to take his word for it - they searched the Scriptures to see if what he was teaching was true.

 

[Ginger2]

They did. There are many quotes in the NT that used the Deutrocanonical Books.

Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make “His paths straight.” Hebrew - make “level in the desert a highway.”

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.

Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.

Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.

Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).

Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has “perfect praise.” Hebrew - thou has “established strength.”

The above books are not Apocryphal books.

That leaves:

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42

Heb. 12:12 - the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

I have responded to this question many times, so I’ll try to be breif.

1. Just because an Apocryphal book has a statement that is consistent with history or geology, etc. is not proof that the entire book is truthful.

2.Just because a NT book has a quote that appears in an Apocryphal book does not mean that Apostle took the quote from that Apocryphal book.

1. Do the above NT quotes specifically cite the Apocryphal book from which you claim the quote was taken?

I’ll give you an example that was posed to me earlier (might have been a different thread)

Jude quotes Enoch. Jude actually credits the quote to Enoch. Yet the Book of Enoch from which the quote was supposedly taken is not included in the Catholic canon because it is pseudepigrapha.