Tradition: The Origins

[Ilroy]

Forbidding Priests from marrying doesn’t make them any holier than they would be if they were allowed to marry, unless your church thinks that the sexual act between husband and wife is somehow unclean or immoral for someone of that position.

How bout you check Christ’s own words on this subject…
Matt; 19:
10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.
11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.
12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and **there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. **

Sounds very much like priests to me…they make themselves “eunuchs” for the kingdom of Heaven. Besides that, no priest is ever forced to become a priest therefor, noone is forbidden to marry. This is such an old and tired arguement against the Church.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It would appear that your tradition conflicts with scripture. How would you explain it?

The Church does not forbid marriage, in fact, she encourages it. Some choose to sacrifice that right for the love of God. The Shakers forbade marriage. I think the Albigensians did too - but I’m not sure. The Church encourages occasional abstinance from meat as penance. The Seventh Day Adventists forbid the eating of certain meats and look down on eating all meat.

I think that Paul must have been prophesying of the future Protestants when he wrote this to Titus.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Hey Shorty,

Surely as a good evangelical you will be able to tell us where in the Scriptures it is stated that the Bible (the original version or yours, I’m open) is the Determining Rule of What Constitutes ‘Chrisitianity’?

I’m at a loss, since my Faith evolved out of Judaism and took on many of its traditions and rites.

Are ‘altar calls’ in the Bible? Why do so many people set up shop and open up their own ‘church of the everlasting rock’ worship center? Isn’t there ANY agreement among Christians who are non-Catholic?

Thanking you in advance,

Robert

BUMP!

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

Hey Shorty,

Surely as a good evangelical you will be able to tell us where in the Scriptures it is stated that the Bible (the original version or yours, I’m open) is the Determining Rule of What Constitutes ‘Chrisitianity’?

I’m at a loss, since my Faith evolved out of Judaism and took on many of its traditions and rites.

Are ‘altar calls’ in the Bible? Why do so many people set up shop and open up their own ‘church of the everlasting rock’ worship center? Isn’t there ANY agreement among Christians who are non-Catholic?

Thanking you in advance,

Robert

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

See? They used the scriptures as a rule of thumb for determining whether the doctrines Paul taught were true or not, not traditions or heresay. They did it, and so can we.

With regard to alter calls, scripture makes no mention of them - just as the words ‘Trinity’ or ‘Pope’ aren’t used. But they aren’t unscriptural. Just look at this:

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

 

[peary]

Catholics,

What would you say are the main sources for your Church traditions? The writings of the early church fathers? Catechism? Writings done by Popes and Bishops? All of the above?

Main sources of Catholic Church Tradition: apostolic succession, the existence of the papacy, writings of the early Church Fathers, decisions of the Councils, the catechism…I guess all of the above!

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

Main sources of Catholic Church Tradition: apostolic succession, the existence of the papacy, writings of the early Church Fathers, decisions of the Councils, the catechism…I guess all of the above!

Have all of these ever been published in one book, or would I have to buy them seperately?

 

[ralphinal]

What a thread. We should start with general history.

Books 2000 years ago did not exist. Not as we know it. The scriptures would be large, cumbersome and hard to reproduce without modern equipment. They were expensive and delicate. Remember when John says that not all the works of Christ are included? He mentions that only what is needed to believe is there (not what you must believe, but what shows us Christ is God). If the reason that there are Gospels are to prove who Christ was, what tells us how to worship him? He left no instructions for his worship. There were no written scriptures for at least the first few years after Pentecost. How were people taught at that time?

A bishop (or Apostle, depending on when and where) would teach the faith, reserving the scriptures in the Church. Oral teachings were man-portable and easy to handle. It could be hidden in times of persecution. Once there were Gospels, these were used to support the claims. Each Church had a Bishop in the early days, teaching the faith. Overall, there were no real differences in the teachings, although language and cultural differences led to a few different rites, such as the Latin Rite and the Chaldean Catholics. AS the Church grew, priests were needed. All along, Christian writers were spreading the faith through the written word. Defending it against heresies and expounding on our understanding. Books are still non-existant and the Scriptures are still rare. For the most part, everything is oral. When an issue came up, the first test (in English) was Universality. If the rest of the Church taught something else, the new issue was wrong. If the problem was more wide-spread, the next check was antiquity. If you can see where, in an earlier time, the topic was not taught in that manner, you reverted to the earlier time.

The faith grew. The traditions did as well. Again, always being checked against the constant teachings of the Church. Skip ahead to the Middle ages. You have true books, but they are still hand printed. They are still large and cumbersome. But you start getting more codified.

Reformation: people had access to books in unprecedented ways. Some decided that if it is not in the Bible, it is wrong. Using the Church’s test, that is not Universal nor was it supported in antiquity. Why should it be accepted?

You want one book or source? There really isn’t one. Remember that we have 2000 years of teachings to go through. But, if you wish to discuss it, please learn some basic terms such as dogma, doctrine, and discipline. Unmarried priests is a discipline. It can be changed. The Orthodox allow a man who was married to become a priest, but a single priest cannot marry. I think that Orthodox bishops are always single. In the Latin Rite, married men can become priests under some situations.

For what it is worth, there are only two Articles of Faith in the Catholic Church not covered at all by the Scriptures: the Canon of the Bible and the proof that the Books are Inspired. If you can show me these in your Bible, please do. Otherwise, you are following a tradition of ours as well.

 

[peary]

Have all of these ever been published in one book, or would I have to buy them seperately?

Try the Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

See? They used the scriptures as a rule of thumb for determining whether the doctrines Paul taught were true or not, not traditions or heresay. They did it, and so can we.

 

[lynnareyno]

Originally Posted by ShortyLaRock_82
Have all of these ever been published in one book, or would I have to buy them seperately?

What about the Catechism Of the Catholic Church?
Wouldn’t this include everything? ( with references)

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

Thanks, ShortyLaRock, but this DOES NOT answer my question.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Well, what about those OTHER books mentioned and even quoted in what we now call the OT?

Are those God’s words? If so, shouldn’t we be printing them along with the OT?

Like the Book of Jashar (quoted in Joshua 10:12-13)?

What about the Book of the Wars of Yahweh cited in Numbers 21:14?

And the Books of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)?

Don’t fall into the literalist trap of every iota and every word (in English no less!) having some secret, coded meaning open to private interpretation, but hey, that’s Protestantism, isn’t it?

Robert

 

[psyche23]

What about the Catechism Of the Catholic Church?
Wouldn’t this include everything? ( with references)

The Catechism holds everything we as Catholics believe based upon Scripture and Tradition, yes. It’s not indepth enough to cover all the details though which is why we still need a Pope. So it’s the best resource to get an overall view, but there’s soo much more too that you just can’t stop there…

As always, I’m always willing to be corrected if I misspeak.

 

[holy_wood]

Rbt Southwell;3174695:

The OT is the word of God, isn’t it? At that time, it was the Bible.

If you want to get technical their was no Old Testament Canon during Christ ministry and for the better part of the Apostolic age.

The “Council of Jabneh” came up with a list after the destruction of the Temple. The “Council of Jabneh” was a group of Jewish scholars who were granted permission by Rome around the year 90 to meet in Palestine near the Mediterranean Sea in Jabneh (or Jamnia). Here they established a non-authoritative, “reconstituted” Sanhedrin. Among the things they discussed was the status of several questionable writings in the Jewish Bible. They also rejected the Christian writings and made a new translation of the Greek Septuagint.

The Jewish Canon

The vast majority of Jews in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. lived outside of Israel. They were called the diaspora, those dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Many had become Hellenized—that is, they had taken on the Greco-Roman culture, including the Greek language. The Septuagint, containing the deuterocanonical books, was the main Bible used by these Jews of the diaspora.

Most non-Christian Jews of the first century A.D. considered the Church to be a heretical and misinformed Jewish cult, probably similar to the way Christians look at the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses of today. In the first century, several decades after the life of Christ, the majority of early Christians were Gentiles, and they used the Greek Septuagint as their Old Testament, following the example of the Greek-speaking Jews, including Jesus and the apostles (note 1, sidebar, page 25).

When Christians began to use this Greek translation to convert Jews to the faith, the Jews began to detest it (note 2, sidebar, page 25). Does it surprise anyone that they would condemn the canon and translation the Christians used, even if it was originally translated, approved of, and put into circulation by the Jews themselves three hundred and fifty years earlier (c. 250 B.C.)? The early Church, following the Greek Septuagint and the apostles’ extensive use of it (Paul took most of his Old Testament quotations from it), accepted the deuterocanonical books. When the canon was finally closed by the councils of the Catholic Church, these books were included.

The so-called “Council of Jabneh” was a group of Jewish scholars who were granted permission by Rome around the year 90 to meet in Palestine near the Mediterranean Sea in Jabneh (or Jamnia). Here they established a non-authoritative, “reconstituted” Sanhedrin (note 3, sidebar, page 25). Among the things they discussed was the status of several questionable writings in the Jewish Bible. They also rejected the Christian writings and made a new translation of the Greek Septuagint.

Since many Protestant authors have appealed to the “Council of Jabneh” in their case against the deuterocanonical books contained in the Catholic Bible, it will serve us well to look at a few examples.

In his popular book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie [Baker Books, 1995]), Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary, denies the Catholic canon of the Old Testament, claiming that the Jewish rabbis at Jabneh excluded the deuterocanonical books received by Catholics and that the canon was fixed (meaning finalized) at Jabneh.

Geisler writes, “The Jewish scholars at Jabneh (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha” (169). And though Geisler seems to deny the authority of the rabbis at Jabneh in one place in his A General Introduction to the Bible (with W. E. Nix [Moody Press, 1996]), he later relays in a chart, “Council of Jabneh (A.D. 90), Old Testament Canon fixed” (286).

Geisler is not alone in his assertion that the Apocrypha was rejected and the final Old Testament canon was fixed at Jabneh. It seems to be a common legend that is used as “proof” to bolster up an ahistorical and incorrect assumption. Before we take a look at the myth, we will demonstrate how it is often appealed to. A couple more quick examples of this false reliance on the “Council of Jabneh” will suffice:

“At the end of the first Christian century, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Gamnia [Jamnia], closed the canon of the Hebrew book (those considered authoritative)” (Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism & Christianity [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986], 129).

 

[holy_wood]

Did Jabneh have authority?

According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the “council” in Jabneh in 90 was not even an “official” council with binding authority to make such a decision:

“After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it” (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).

Isn’t it interesting that the Jews did not have a “closed canon” of Scripture during the time of Christ, before 100, or even after Jabneh? Even during the time of Christ there were competing opinions on what books actually belonged in the Jewish Bible. There were various collections in existence. Sadducees and Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch, the first five books, whereas the Pharisees accepted a fuller canon including Psalms and the prophets. The Masoretic text did not contain the deuterocanonicals, whereas the widely used Greek Septuagint did.

Some cautionary points should be noted here:

1. Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing. There was a school for studying the Law at Jabneh, and the rabbis there exercised legal functions in the Jewish community.
2. Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.
3. A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Even so, arguments regarding these books persisted in Judaism centuries after the Jabneh period. There were also subsequent debates about Esther.
4. We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. In fact, Sirach, which was read and copied by Jews after the Jabneh period, did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary [Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522).

Why the Church rejects the Jewish canon

Even if the rabbis at Jabneh did have the authority to make such a canonical determination and had closed the canon, who says they had the authority from God to make such a binding determination? Why should Christians accept their determination? God had publicly turned aside from the Jews as his “prophetic voice” twenty years earlier when Jerusalem was destroyed and razed by fire. God judged them and rejected their old wineskins. The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the gospel) and new wineskins (the Church). Why accept the unauthoritative rabbis’ determination rather than the Church’s?

There is a further reason we should not rely on the first-century Jews for their determination of the canon, even if they had made such a determination: The rabbis of Jabneh eventually provided a new translation in Greek to replace their previous translation of the Septuagint. Why? Because the Gentile Christians were using the Septuagint for apologetic and evangelistic purposes—in other words, they were converting the Jews using their own Greek Scriptures!

For example, they were using it to prove the virginal birth of Jesus. In the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 7:14 is rendered, “A young woman shall conceive and bear a son,” whereas the Greek Septuagint, quoted by Matthew (1:23), renders it, “A virgin shall be with child and bear a son” (emphasis added). The rabbis who supposedly “determined” the final Protestant canon also authorized a new Greek translation specifically to hinder the gospel. Aquila, the Jewish translator of the new version, denied the Virgin Birth and changed the Greek word from virgin to young woman.

One of the key issues in the first-century Jewish mind regarding the canon was not necessarily inspiration but resisting the Christian evangelization of the Jews and Gentiles. It was an issue of Jew versus the new Christian teaching and the Christians’ use of the Jewish Greek Scripture. It would seem rather strange for a Protestant to choose the truncated canon chosen by the Jewish leaders and by so doing fall on the side of the anti-Christian, disenfranchised Jew in this matter (see note 4, sidebar, page 25).

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

Well, what about those OTHER books mentioned and even quoted in what we now call the OT?