Tradition can be misleading? So can the Bible.

[justasking4]

Part 1

guanophore;3159299]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Have you studied the fathers themselves or just the quotes?
guanophore
I did not answer this, because I did not think it was directed to me.
25 years ago I had left the Catholic Church. I went to a Protestant Evangelical Seminary so that I could figure out which church I should join. I took a course in historical Theology, where I first read the fathers. I came out of three years of Theological Studies more Catholic than I have ever been! I encourage you to read the fathers, ja4, but I also caution you. They are very Catholic!

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I don’t recall saying this about the apostlles or the Scriptures. What i have said is that those doctrines and practices not grounded in the scriptures are the “speculations of men” since they have no scriptural authority behind them.
guanophore
No, you have said that about tradition, though. Now it appears you are forwarding a defintion that might be different. The defintion you gave is that traditions may mean doctrine and injunctions that ought to be followed by the faithful. This is a different definition than you have given in the past for the tradition.

Why don’t you send me your evidence for this in context.Its quite easy to be misunderstood in this kind of format.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Some examples can be found in the very letter in which he mentions his traditions. 2 Thes 3:6-15 would be a good example of his traditions.
guanophore
You have said many times that “all we have” is in the Bible. Do you believe that all the traditions that Paul delivered are in the NT?

How could we know if its not written down?
We can speculate all we want on this but that does not mean we will know.

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

guanophore;3159299]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
In the case of the Paul and the scriptures yes. However, if its not in the scriptures then you speculations.
guanophore
By this do you mean, if Paul gave them any oral instructions that were not later written down, then they are no longer apostolic traditions, but speculations?

They would be speculations to us since we don’t know what they were. To say a person would know is to speculate since you don’t know what they were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I would think so.
guanophore
I think so too. I think that the oral instructions he gave them that were from the Spirit were of equal authority as the words he later wrote in his letters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justasking4
Since i don’t know the fathers that well i don’t know what they thought of tradition. I’m wondering if the term “tradition” is the same as Scripture alone.
guanophore
This is an interesting question to explore. I think we need to be mindful that the first Christians were all Jews, and thoroughly steeped in oral tradition as a way of life. Jesus taught using this method (not passing out books, for example). When Jesus told the Apostles to “go and teach all that I have commanded”, they implemented the methods that Jesus used. This method of oral transmission was adopted by the whole first generation of disciples, and by the early fathers for several centuries.

Are you saying that the early fathers relied on primarily on word of mouth what Jesus taught and not to the written scriptures?

When the canon was closed, it was no longer a question which documents were considered inspired, and which were not.

i agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Yes. However that does not mean that all they taught was true though. i don’t think even the catholic church agrees with all that the fathers said. Would you agree?
guanophore
Frankly, it is a mystery to me why some of the early writings were not included in the NT, the Didache, for example. In some of them, I cannot find anything that contradicts Catholic teaching. However, I do agree with you that there are comments in some of the works that do not agree with Church teaching. Despite this, they are a good source of historical information about what the early church thought about and practiced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Since we don’t know what these oral teachings were the only thing we have are his letters. Should we assume some of this oral teaching was evenually written down as his letters?
guanophore
Catholics don’t assume this, ja4, as you do, and neither do the Orthodox. In fact, the Apostolic faiths believe as they pray, in liturgy. Much of this was not written down in the NT.

i’m confused. What does this mean? Are you saying in your liturgy you know something about what the apostles taught that is not written in the Scriptures?

 

[guanophore]

They would be speculations to us since we don’t know what they were. To say a person would know is to speculate since you don’t know what they were.

Well, speak for yourself… YOU don’t know what they were because you have rejected the Apostolic Teaching. Those of us that have accepted it know what they were.

Are you saying that the early fathers relied on primarily on word of mouth what Jesus taught and not to the written scriptures?

No, I am saying that they relied upon them equally.

i’m confused. What does this mean? Are you saying in your liturgy you know something about what the apostles taught that is not written in the Scriptures?

Yes. Liturgy and Prayer complement the scripture. It is not so much that they are “not written” as that they evolved from practices, and not necessarily from the scripture. The Liturgies are full of scripture, but the manner in which they are conducted was transmitted through practice, not writing.

 

[juliamajor]

Finally, justasking4, one question! You tend to shoot out questions like bullets from a gun. I’m a “view from the pew” person not a scriptural scholar or even an expert on Church teaching. But I would say you would start with the Creed. Now how about that. Do you agree to everything in the Apostles’ Creed?
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,
died and was buried. He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again. He ascended into
heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the
Father. He will come again to judge the living
and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic
Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness
of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the
life everlasting. Amen
Can you say Amen to that brother?? And while we’re here maybe you’ve told others before, but what is your background? When you want to give someone directions where to go, it’s good to know where they are coming from.
and by the way Happy New Year.

Hate to tell you JA but what Elizabeth wrote is tradition- where do you think it came from ?
there were a myriads of "christianities’ out there of a wide spectrum- yet there was a mainstream. The ones who were mainstream passed there information it was a way to identify which ‘sect’ you were from and what you believed-mostly to fight against gnostics. It can be traced-written that is- to a 2nd century prayer called “the old Roman Symbol” the creed that we have WRITTEN didn’t come until much later. So are you saying without the formula written down it has no value? Surely what mainstream christians believed was handed down to them orally.? Were they left foundering for centuries- before the creed was written. A jewish friend of mine thinks this whole scripture vs tradition is hysterical.Of course Tradition is important to the Jews and they don’t hesitate to use them. Tradition is living and breathing and continues- scripture BY ITSELF can remain static- in unison they are a powerful combination that keeps the faith alive. Is the scripture totally sufficient? Yes and no- it certainly doesn’t cover conundrums that the 21st C has given us- but tradition does. Does scripture cover test-tube babies,how about life on other planets are they with souls or without?If A.I. comes about does that make it alive,cloning- is it right to clone body parts and actually people.? What about Animal rights or pollution?- I think you may able to twist scripture to fit what you want it to but if you are a biblical literalist- isn’t that dancing with the devil?

 

[guanophore]

I think you may able to twist scripture to fit what you want it to but if you are a biblical literalist- isn’t that dancing with the devil?

And how!

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3160289]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
They would be speculations to us since we don’t know what they were. To say a person would know is to speculate since you don’t know what they were.
guanophore
Well, speak for yourself… YOU don’t know what they were because you have rejected the Apostolic Teaching. Those of us that have accepted it know what they were.

What then are were they? What did the apostles teach or say that is not recorded in the Scriptures?

 

[guanophore]

What then are were they? What did the apostles teach or say that is not recorded in the Scriptures?

As you have been informed repeatedly, ja4, the Sacred Tradition teaches us an entire way of life. Granted, it is centered around Christ, and to that extent it is Bible Centered. However, there is much more to living the Christian life than what is found in the scriptures. It is not that Sacred Tradition “is not recorded” as most of it is, in the scripture,a n in other places. It is more a matter of how to understand and apply what is recorded.

 

[justasking4]

As you have been informed repeatedly, ja4, the Sacred Tradition teaches us an entire way of life. Granted, it is centered around Christ, and to that extent it is Bible Centered. However, there is much more to living the Christian life than what is found in the scriptures. It is not that Sacred Tradition “is not recorded” as most of it is, in the scripture,a n in other places. It is more a matter of how to understand and apply what is recorded.

So Sacred Tradition is not the Scriptures only but also what the catholic church understands and applies them. Is this correct?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3154221]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets take a couple examples of catholic doctrine and see if it is of the Scriptures or of men. Take Mary’ assumption and being prayed to. Where are these things taught in Scripture?
guanophore
You proceed from an erroneous foundation, ja4. You are assuming that something you cannot find in scripture is “of men”, and this is an error.

Huh? If its not in the Scriptures it does not have apostolic grounding. Without that you the teachings of men. Its what Jesus called the traditions of men. Doesn’t mean all traditions of men are bad but they do not have divine authority to ground them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If they are not found in Scripture then they must be the traditions of men.
guanophore
An erroneous conclusion from an erroneous premise. How could a person arrive anywhere else?

Not so. This is not based on an erronous premise but a sound one and quite basic.

 

[alanjeddy]

As you have been informed repeatedly, ja4, the Sacred Tradition teaches us an entire way of life. Granted, it is centered around Christ, and to that extent it is Bible Centered. However, there is much more to living the Christian life than what is found in the scriptures. It is not that Sacred Tradition “is not recorded” as most of it is, in the scripture,a n in other places. It is more a matter of how to understand and apply what is recorded.

ja4 You need to read this again and again and again i know you are intellectually chalenged but read it again then it might just sink in for you in a rare moment of clarity.

 

[alanjeddy]

I did not answer this, because I did not think it was directed to me.
25 years ago I had left the Catholic Church. I went to a Protestant Evangelical Seminary so that I could figure out which church I should join. I took a course in historical Theology, where I first read the fathers. I came out of three years of Theological Studies more Catholic than I have ever been! I encourage you to read the fathers, ja4, but I also caution you. They are very Catholic!

No, you have said that about tradition, though. Now it appears you are forwarding a defintion that might be different. The defintion you gave is that traditions may mean doctrine and injunctions that ought to be followed by the faithful. This is a different definition than you have given in the past for the tradition.

You have said many times that “all we have” is in the Bible. Do you believe that all the traditions that Paul delivered are in the NT?

By this do you mean, if Paul gave them any oral instructions that were not later written down, then they are no longer apostolic traditions, but speculations?

I think so too. I think that the oral instructions he gave them that were from the Spirit were of equal authority as the words he later wrote in his letters.

This is an interesting question to explore. I think we need to be mindful that the first Christians were all Jews, and thoroughly steeped in oral tradition as a way of life. Jesus taught using this method (not passing out books, for example). When Jesus told the Apostles to “go and teach all that I have commanded”, they implemented the methods that Jesus used. This method of oral transmission was adopted by the whole first generation of disciples, and by the early fathers for several centuries. When the canon was closed, it was no longer a question which documents were considered inspired, and which were not.

Frankly, it is a mystery to me why some of the early writings were not included in the NT, the Didache, for example. In some of them, I cannot find anything that contradicts Catholic teaching. However, I do agree with you that there are comments in some of the works that do not agree with Church teaching. Despite this, they are a good source of historical information about what the early church thought about and practiced.

Read this again JA4, Repetition is the secret to language learning and since you seem incapable of understanding English perhaps this might work for you?

 

[justasking4]

alanjeddy;3162259]

Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
As you have been informed repeatedly, ja4, the Sacred Tradition teaches us an entire way of life. Granted, it is centered around Christ, and to that extent it is Bible Centered. However, there is much more to living the Christian life than what is found in the scriptures. It is not that Sacred Tradition “is not recorded” as most of it is, in the scripture,a n in other places. It is more a matter of how to understand and apply what is recorded.

alanjeddy
ja4 You need to read this again and again and again i know you are intellectually chalenged but read it again then it might just sink in for you in a rare moment of clarity.

i have read it again and again and its still confusing. This is part of the problem with being a jerk, intellectually challenged and a bit dense.
Do you believe Sacred Tradition is not the Scriptures but the doctrines and practices of the church? Is that what it is?

 

[Elizabeth2]

i agree with the creed. If you want to know my background look up my profile.

I’m glad you agree with the creed. Your profile says that you are protestant, but as people have been saying there are many Protestant denominations. Are you willing to tell us which one?

 

[alanjeddy]

i have read it again and again and its still confusing. This is part of the problem with being a jerk, intellectually challenged and a bit dense.
Do you believe Sacred Tradition is not the Scriptures but the doctrines and practices of the church? Is that what it is?

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture comprise our Sacred Deposit of Faith.In concert with the Magisterium. Guided by the Holy Spirit we have kept what Jesus taught us and through the centuries we have maintained the Faith of His Church as He instructed us to do over 2000 years ago.

The Word of God is not a something, It is a Somebody and His name is Jesus, who is the Truth, the Way and the Life. He who can not decieve nor be decieved. God is absolute immutable Truth

Jesus proclaimed to Peter: "You are rock and on this rock I will build my Church and the powers of evil shall not prevail upon it. Look not on your sins but the faith of your Church.

There is one Church that has remained steadfast in preserving the faith of His Church, the Holy Catholic apostolic Church.

 

[juliamajor]

Huh? If its not in the Scriptures it does not have apostolic grounding. Without that you the teachings of men. Its what Jesus called the traditions of men. Doesn’t mean all traditions of men are bad but they do not have divine authority to ground them.

Not so. This is not based on an erronous premise but a sound one and quite basic.

Huh, and Huh-That’s one heck of a leap to say that if it isn’t written scripture it isn’t inspired.I don’t know of any place in the bible that says that. Swallowing things that are written as the whole truth and nothing but the truth is relatively recent. Oral tradition was and is the foundation of most religions and societies. Entire writing systems were created around oral tradition most ancient histories were not written in the time period being describe. That was certainly true of the Gospels. and no matter what modern people may think oral tradition is quite reliable.Especially anything of great important. The learned it by repeating line after line they were taught until thy had it completely right.Kinda like Farenheit 451. C.S.lewis one said if you have have to choose from a written record or tradition he said to pick tradition- it is often more reliable and cared for then written. copyists can be awfully sloppy and so can translations but tradition can keep everyone straight.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m not that familar with the Early Fathers. It appears you are. What Tradition are you speaking of here?

You have asked me this same question before. How can you even know anything about Christianity without knowing the Early Church Fathers?

This is confusing. Are you using the terms Tradition and the Scriptures interchangably?

This would not be confusing if you understood history and Early Church Fathers, and actually reading the posts on this thread. Scripture flows from Tradition. ECF under the guidance of HS compiled which writings were inspired. There were a lot of sacred writings, Evangeluum of Jamaes, Gospel of Thomas, etc around at the time. They all spoke of Jesus. Which ones belonged to inspired, which not?

I didn’t see you answer my question about the fathers. Have you studied them in depth or do you rely on quotes from them?

You asked me this question too, when I answered you, no response. Must you study the Civil War in depth to know it happened under Lincoln, how many were killed, etc.? What is your definition of in depth? Must they be studied in the original Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew? We have scholars who have done that already. By accepting the Holy Bible as the inspired word of God, you also accept the works of Catholic Scholars. It is the Catholic Church who guarded Sacred Scripture in the Dark Ages in monasteries when Barbarian hordes invaded and destroyed Roman civilization. It was the Catholic Church who guarded the Bible and made sure translations were free from error. She thusly rejected early Tynsdale and Wycliff translations. Without the cc, there would be no Bible, no Christianity to “Protest” in 1521.

 

[sterryfamily]

Bottom line is **justasking4 **is simply trying to antagonize. When he can’t answer a question, he dodges it. When given a definitive answer, he ignores it.

He knows, as well as everyone here, that the Bible commands that we adhere to Sacred Tradition. He knows that the apostles commanded it and all Christendom followed it for the first 1500 years. He knows Christ and His Church have not altered their teaching on it down to today. He knows that Sacred Tradition was the rule by which all questions were answered for all of Christian history.

 

[sterryfamily]

One cannot argue from Sacred Scripture while denying Sacred Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition and it was by Tradition that Christ had his Church determine the canon of Scripture.

Otherwise, JA4’s Bible would contain the Gospel of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistles of Clement, the Didache, the Protoevangelium of James, etc. etc. etc. And even then, if his Bible contained ALL the early Christian and pseudo-Christian writings, the canon would still have been determined by an infallible magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit using Tradition.

It’s unavoidable. He knows it.

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;3164556]You have asked me this same question before. How can you even know anything about Christianity without knowing the Early Church Fathers?

i know some things about them. I don’t get the impression that any of the catholics that i have dialogued out here know that much either. They may be aware of their quotes as there are some on this site but i sense not many if any have their works in entirety.

This would not be confusing if you understood history and Early Church Fathers, and actually reading the posts on this thread. Scripture flows from Tradition. ECF under the guidance of HS compiled which writings were inspired. There were a lot of sacred writings, Evangeluum of Jamaes, Gospel of Thomas, etc around at the time. They all spoke of Jesus. Which ones belonged to inspired, which not?

i aware of this to.

You asked me this question too, when I answered you, no response.

What was i to say?

Must you study the Civil War in depth to know it happened under Lincoln, how many were killed, etc.?

No. But if you were defend certain things about them then i would expect you to know more than just the reader digest versions.

What is your definition of in depth? Must they be studied in the original Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew?

If a person did this i would consider this a person who knows this at a depth greater than most.

We have scholars who have done that already. By accepting the Holy Bible as the inspired word of God, you also accept the works of Catholic Scholars.

Depends what you mean by “works” here. Do you mean the preservation of the scriptures themselves?

It is the Catholic Church who guarded Sacred Scripture in the Dark Ages in monasteries when Barbarian hordes invaded and destroyed Roman civilization. It was the Catholic Church who guarded the Bible and made sure translations were free from error. She thusly rejected early Tynsdale and Wycliff translations.

True.

Without the cc, there would be no Bible, no Christianity to “Protest” in 1521.

Not true. God could have used anyone any church to guard and preserve His word.

 

[justasking4]

sterryfamily;3165967]Bottom line is **justasking4 **is simply trying to antagonize. When he can’t answer a question, he dodges it. When given a definitive answer, he ignores it.

Do you have some examples of your accusations?

He knows, as well as everyone here, that the Bible commands that we adhere to Sacred Tradition.

I’m just trying to understand what it is. When i ask for example what an “unwritten Sacred Tradition” is i haven’t seen any.

He knows that the apostles commanded it and all Christendom followed it for the first 1500 years.

i’m aware that Paul makes reference to his traditions but not to any of the apostles traditions not recorded in Scripture.

He knows Christ and His Church have not altered their teaching on it down to today.

This is patently false. There are many things the catholic church has altered from the time of the apostles. Celibate leadership is one such example. Leaders in the NT were married in many cases while in the catholic church they are not.

He knows that Sacred Tradition was the rule by which all questions were answered for all of Christian history.

???