Scripture vs Tradition

[mgrfin]

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.

I cannot accept your reasoning. If you discipline your children verbally, and then write them a note, which has more authority and strength?

Scripture is the Written Word of God.
Tradition is the unWritten Word of God.

If Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the Church from error, it is necessary to believe what that Church says, as well as read the Scriptures.

As a matter of fact, the Scriptures can be confusing. Many of my forebears couldn’t read or write. How is the Word of God to come to them? “Faith comes from hearing”, hearing the word of God is listening to what is written as well as not written. The Holy Spirit protects that speech to the Church from error.

Your notion of Tradition is false. You confuse ‘tradition’ as myth or fireside chats, relating customs and mores. No, Tradition is what has been related to the Apostles (the Church), inspired as the books of the Bible.

The last verse of the Gospel of St. John makes it abundantly clear:

John 21:25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

Why you are so adamant about God speaking to you directly is because you know that the Scriptures, in themselves, are incomplete. The Unwritten Word of God fills the void, Tradition, not your personal appearances from God.

peace

 

[lak611]

I cannot accept your reasoning. If you discipline your children verbally, and then write them a note, which has more authority and strength?

Scripture is the Written Word of God.
Tradition is the unWritten Word of God.

If Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the Church from error, it is necessary to believe what that Church says, as well as read the Scriptures.

As a matter of fact, the Scriptures can be confusing. Many of my forebears couldn’t read or write. How is the Word of God to come to them? “Faith comes from hearing”, hearing the word of God is listening to what is written as well as not written. The Holy Spirit protects that speech to the Church from error.

Your notion of Tradition is false. You confuse ‘tradition’ as myth or fireside chats, relating customs and mores. No, Tradition is what has been related to the Apostles (the Church), inspired as the books of the Bible.

The last verse of the Gospel of St. John makes it abundantly clear:

John 21:25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

Why you are so adamant about God speaking to you directly is because you know that the Scriptures, in themselves, are incomplete. The Unwritten Word of God fills the void, Tradition, not your personal appearances from God.

peace

The Church started on Pentecost. The earliest New Testament writings were not completed for another 20+ years. Tradition was the basis of the original Church before the Bible was completed.

 

[Janet_S]

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.

Actually your explanation is an appeal to Tradition. You never met the Apostles, yet you depend on the testimony of the Christians who did. This testimony was handed down through the ages, and you trust that it’s true.

You may never have thought of it this way, but you are saying you trust that the Bible is inspired because Tradition tells you so.

 

[Janet_S]

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.

I am not sure exactly how this discussion went, but Catholics do not argue that proof of the OT canon is found in NT quotes.

Non-Catholics frequently make this argument, though.

If this was the argument you were making to support your OT canon–that you know which books belong in the OT canon because Jesus and the Apostles quote from these books in the NT–the Catholic who mentioned the book of Enoch was probably pointing out to you the inconsistency in your argument. To illustrate, they are showing that Jesus and/or the Apostles quote from the book of Enoch, and you don’t accept that book as canonical. Therefore, NT quotes cannot be the basis for your determination of the OT canon or else you would accept the book of Enoch.

So I think that person’s point was not to argue in favor of the Catholic canon but to point out to you the inconsistency of the non-Catholic argument.

 

[Ginger2]

I am not sure exactly how this discussion went,

Actually someone (a Catholic) once said that Enoch should be included in the canon because Jude quoted from the book of Enoch.

But Enoch is considered a pseudo writing and that is why it was not included.

My point is that Jude was giving an accurate quote from Enoch, but the quote was very likely from a different source and not from the pseudo-book.

Here are the three points I cited:

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.

Jude 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.

And,
was not written by Enoch.

 

[Janet_S]

Actually someone (a Catholic) once said that Enoch should be included in the canon because Jude quoted from the book of Enoch.

But Enoch is considered a pseudo writing and that is why it was not included.

My point is that Jude was giving an accurate quote from Enoch, but the quote was very likely from a different source and not from the pseudo-book.

Here are the three points I cited:

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.

Jude 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.

And,
was not written by Enoch.

So are you claiming Jude didn’t get this quote from the book of Enoch, he got it from an “inspired” source? This is what Jude quoted:

Enoch, of the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied also about them when he said, “Behold, the Lord has come with his countless holy ones to execute judgment on all and to convict everyone for all the godless deeds that they committed and for all the harsh words godless sinners have uttered against him.” Jude 14-15

Which “inspired” source did he get this from? Do you have this quote anywhere in your OT?

 

[Janet_S]

Actually someone (a Catholic) once said that Enoch should be included in the canon because Jude quoted from the book of Enoch.

But Enoch is considered a pseudo writing and that is why it was not included.

My point is that Jude was giving an accurate quote from Enoch, but the quote was very likely from a different source and not from the pseudo-book.

Here are the three points I cited:

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.

Jude 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.

And,
was not written by Enoch.

So the Catholic that brought up this issue was claiming: “If the book of Enoch had been written by Enoch, Catholics would have included it in their canon since Jude quoted it in the NT.” Is that what you are saying?

If the Catholic was making this claim, he was presenting a poor argument, and it’s not the Catholic position. The Catholic Church bases its OT canon on Apostolic Tradition. We accept those books accepted as inspired by Jesus and the Apostles, but we never claim that we can find quotes from all the inspired OT books in the NT.

Non-Catholics often make this claim even though they can’t find quotes from all their OT books in the NT either. This is a non-Catholic site, and they state there are no NT quotations from these 5 OT books: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.
bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm

And Enoch isn’t the only non-canonical book quoted in the NT. Paul quotes other non-canonical writings, particularly the pagan poets:
Menander–Do not be led astray: “Bad company corrupts good morals.” 1 Cor 15:33
Aratus-- as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ Acts 17:28
Epimenedes–For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ Acts 17:28
Epimenedes–One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, “Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons.” Ti 1:12

It’s clear that the OT canon is based on Apostolic Tradition, not NT quotes. Non-Catholics cannot claim that they come up with their OT canon based on quotations from the NT since 5 books they accept are not quoted in the NT at all. Quotation in the NT does not equal canonicity.

 

[mgrfin]

So the Catholic that brought up this issue was claiming: “If the book of Enoch had been written by Enoch, Catholics would have included it in their canon since Jude quoted it in the NT.” Is that what you are saying?

If the Catholic was making this claim, he was presenting a poor argument, and it’s not the Catholic position. The Catholic Church bases its OT canon on Apostolic Tradition. We accept those books accepted as inspired by Jesus and the Apostles, but we never claim that we can find quotes from all the inspired OT books in the NT.

Non-Catholics often make this claim even though they can’t find quotes from all their OT books in the NT either. This is a non-Catholic site, and they state there are no NT quotations from these 5 OT books: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.
bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm

And Enoch isn’t the only non-canonical book quoted in the NT. Paul quotes other non-canonical writings, particularly the pagan poets:
Menander–Do not be led astray: “Bad company corrupts good morals.” 1 Cor 15:33
Aratus-- as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ Acts 17:28
Epimenedes–For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ Acts 17:28
Epimenedes–One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, “Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons.” Ti 1:12

It’s clear that the OT canon is based on Apostolic Tradition, not NT quotes. Non-Catholics cannot claim that they come up with their OT canon based on quotations from the NT since 5 books they accept are not quoted in the NT at all. Quotation in the NT does not equal canonicity.

The non-Catholic arguments are false.

1. The Bible is self-authenticating. This is logic mumbo-jumbo. The only thing that it is is circular reasoning.
2. The OT canon is based on NT quotes. Of course, some are quoted in the NT but this is incidental to their proof.
3. The last false argument is that the Holy Spirit speaks to me and tells me so.

At this point we ask these folks to listent to themselves: inconclusive proofs, false reasoning, and personal apparitions, which is vainglory, plain and simple - that God would rather speak to individuals rather than to the Church He has founded.

If one doesn’t believe the testimony of the Church, how can one believe these ‘ghost whisperings’?

peace

 

[Ginger2]

So are you claiming Jude didn’t get this quote from the book of Enoch, he got it from an “inspired” source? This is what Jude quoted:

Which “inspired” source did he get this from? Do you have this quote anywhere in your OT?

No, I am claiming that there is no evidence that Jude took the quote from Enoch - only that Enoch mentions the same quote. If Jude did indeed quote from the pseudo- Book of Enoch, it does not lend credence in any way to suggest the Book of Enoch is inspired. Thus, the same is true for any other Apocryphal books that may have been quoted from. Catholics often cite Nt writers supposedly quoting from the Apocrypha as proof the books belong in the canon. Obviously that is not proof in itself, or else Enoch would be in the canon also.

 

[Ginger2]

So the Catholic that brought up this issue was claiming: “If the book of Enoch had been written by Enoch, Catholics would have included it in their canon since Jude quoted it in the NT.” Is that what you are saying?

No. He was claiming that since the Book of Enoch was quoted by Jude, that was proof it belonged in the canon.

 

[Ginger2]

The non-Catholic arguments are false…

1. The Bible is self-authenticating. This is logic mumbo-jumbo. The only thing that it is is circular reasoning…

The Bible is self-authenticating. In addition to the other proofs I mentioned earlier, these books themselves claim to be the word of God.

Gen 1:3 And God said,
Gen 1:6 And God said,
Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Lev 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Num 6:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Deu 2:2 And the LORD spake unto me, saying,
Jos 4:1 And it came to pass, …, that the LORD spake unto Joshua, saying,
Jdg 1:2 And the LORD said,
Jdg 7:2 And the LORD said unto Gideon,
1Sa 3:4 That the LORD called Samuel: and he answered, Here [am] I.

Well, you get the idea…Also, when the prophesies came true it was proof of their inspiration. Often the Hebrews rejected the words of the prophets until their prophesies came true.

1. The last false argument is that the Holy Spirit speaks to me and tells me so.

Just what makes you think you know who the Lord speaks to and who He does not?

 

[DLC]

Aren’t the teaching magestrium mere men? Do you know of an infallible person? We must have an infallible guide that will lead us into all truth. We do in the person of the Holy spirit.

DLC

“Traditions” as you call them, are part of the Deposit of faith, just as Scripture is.

The teaching Magisterium of the Church (Tradition, as you call it),
and Scripture agree.

What does not agree are interpretations of christian communities such as the Lutherans and the Reformed regarding the meaning of Scripture. Nor do they have a uniform interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

peace

 

[Philthy]

I am wondering,
if Tradition is necessary for a correct interpretation of Scriptures,
Why do Catholics disagree on the meanings of certain Scriptures?

• Because the meaning of “certain Scriptures” have not been revealed by Tradition
• It is irrelevent whether individual Catholics disagree on the meanings of Scripture.

 

[Janet_S]

No, I am claiming that there is no evidence that Jude took the quote from Enoch - only that Enoch mentions the same quote. If Jude did indeed quote from the pseudo- Book of Enoch, it does not lend credence in any way to suggest the Book of Enoch is inspired. Thus, the same is true for any other Apocryphal books that may have been quoted from. Catholics often cite Nt writers supposedly quoting from the Apocrypha as proof the books belong in the canon. Obviously that is not proof in itself, or else Enoch would be in the canon also.

Catholics are using this example (the quote from Enoch in Jude) only to prove the inconsistencies in the Protestant arguments of a self-authenticating OT canon. We are not saying the book of Enoch should be a part of Sacred Scripture just because Jude quoted it.

Some of the deuterocanonical books are cited in Scripture; however, Catholics don’t claim this is proof that these books belong in the canon. The reason why the deutercanonical books belong in the canon is because of Apostolic Tradition–the Apostles accepted them as Holy Scripture, the early Church accepted them as Holy Scripture, and they have always been included as Holy Scripture among the readings of the liturgy.

I don’t think you understand what I am saying, so I guess I’ll move on.

 

[Janet_S]

Aren’t the teaching magestrium mere men? Do you know of an infallible person? We must have an infallible guide that will lead us into all truth. We do in the person of the Holy spirit.

DLC

According to what you have written, you seem to believe everyone is infallible as long he/she believes he/she is guided by the Holy Spirit.

So it sounds to me like you don’t have a problem with infallibility. You just believe it belongs to everyone.

 

[Janet_S]

Regarding the OT canon, you can read part of the chapter here:
Early Christian Doctrine By John Norman Davidson Kelly, The Old Testament, pages 52-55.
books.google.com/books?id=AgJyIZ-UjXkC&dq=Kelly,+J.+N.+D…+Early+Christian+Doctrines&pg=PT1&ots=XKfHZ60bb6&sig=8l_4UJfubr-_Phk_5qV_AqsHoaQ&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fsourceid%3Dnavclient%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rls%3DWZPA,WZPA:2005-37,WZPA:en%26q%3DKelly%252C%2BJ.%2BN.%2BD…%2BEarly%2BChristian%2BDoctrines&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1&cad=legacy#PPA52,M1

Kelly is a Protestant.

 

[Janet_S]

The non-Catholic arguments are false.

1. The Bible is self-authenticating. This is logic mumbo-jumbo. The only thing that it is is circular reasoning.
2. The OT canon is based on NT quotes. Of course, some are quoted in the NT but this is incidental to their proof.
3. The last false argument is that the Holy Spirit speaks to me and tells me so.

I agree.

These three ways to explain how we get the canon of Scripture are just myths. They have nothing to do with historical reality.

 

[Ginger2]

This thread has drifted so far from my original question. It was not intended to be about the canon, as I have another thread to discuss the canon. So, I will respond to the quotes below, but after this I am only going to respond to posts that address my intended topic. Feel free to continue all the discourse each of you is already involved in.
"mgrfin:

1. The Bible is self-authenticating. This is logic mumbo-jumbo. The only thing that it is is circular reasoning.
2. The OT canon is based on NT quotes. Of course, some are quoted in the NT but this is incidental to their proof.
3. The last false argument is that the Holy Spirit speaks to me and tells me so.

These three ways to explain how we get the canon of Scripture are just myths. They have nothing to do with historical reality.

mgrfin’s quote is not something I have heard anyone claim to be an explanantion of how we we get the canon.

1. The claim of inspiration by the author of a single book is not in itself “proof.” The book’s historic and geologic accuracy lends supporting witness. Being written in the time and language it claims to be written in also lends credence.

When prophets recognize the inspiration of other prophets they bear witness to each other - and when their prophecies come true.

The New Testament books acknowledge the Old Testament Books. (Not all the Christian OT books) but what was recognized by the Jews as inspired.

The Old Testament witnesses to the truth of the NT which fulfills the OT prophecy.

And finally, that the testimonies of each book is consistent with the others.

1. This argument is one the Catholics have used to support the Apocrypha - I have not used it to justify either canon.
2. I don’t know of anyone who used this argument.

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

This consistency, and historical, and geologic arguments don’t hold water as real proofs. The only real proof is the Magisterium (Tradition) of the Catholic Church.

The prophecies of the OT relate first to what occured in Old Testament times. We as Christians say, in looking back at them, they were types of things that happened in the life of Christ.

The prophets of the OT were not foretellers of the future; they were preachers for their times. We have an unfortunate use of the word ‘prophet’. They were better understood as mediators, and preachers of their day, chosen by God, to remind the Jews of their mission in the world, and of their covenant with God. They were chosen to stand up to their times, and remind the Jews of who they were in God’s eyes.

These ‘proofs’ as you call them, are not scientific, or even religious proofs. They are telling of events during their times, which later were reflected in the life of Christ. In this sense, they foreshadowed what happened during the life of Jesus. As believers, we are allowed that freedom to read into those events.

But these ‘prophesies’ contained in their books are even a lesser proof of the Canon of the OT and NT. Such events could have happened in apocrypha as well.

The original thought of this thread was poorly explained, and ill-conceived. We went there, and I thought we ended the thought we were scrambling for, namely 'some Catholics don’t support…" whatever they don’t support.

It was on your erroneous thought that the Eastern Orthodox Church was part of the Catholic Church, and in communion with the Catholic Church. That (being false) you wanted to show how 'some Catholics don’t support others notions of Tradition".

But your premise being false, the whole thread should have stopped there. You are trying to resurrect a false and erroneous thread once again.

If you are going to answer only questions on your original thread, you’ll be very quiet. I am glad you have so many threads that we can’t keep up with you.

Peace

 

[Ginger2]

The prophets of the OT were not foretellers of the future; they were preachers for their times. We have an unfortunate use of the word ‘prophet’. They were better understood as mediators, and preachers of their day, chosen by God, to remind the Jews of their mission in the world, and of their covenant with God. They were chosen to stand up to their times, and remind the Jews of who they were in God’s eyes.

Are you saying that Jeremiah didn’t prophesy that King Jehoiachin would be taken to Babylon before it happened.

What about Joseph’s dreams? They all came true. Joseph said that he could not interpret dreams, but that God revealed the meaning to him.