W
- Status
W
Wannano
Guest
No problem, glad we got that figured out. I like to ask questions that stimulate discussion but hope I havent earned a bad reputation here. I recognize the Gotcha game and have had it played here in my direction a time or two. Still it never hurts to be challenged a bit!
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Not at all. From my experience (not just from forums, general research as well), all the counter arguments are already out there. Reason this forum shouldn’t be seen as a means to convince people of your argument, but rather just to realise where the other side is coming from.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
I wouldn’t say the Lord,s supper or Baptism is a tradition. The exact distinction being made is what is in scripture and what is tradition (which is normally those things practised not in scripture). I’m pretty sure those 2 are in the Scripture, very explicitly instituted by Jesus. If that’s tradition then literally EVERYTHING will be and we don’t even need the Bible.
Reading a Holy book in any religion can hardly be a tradition in the sense it would mean here. They all do it, I’m sure Catholicism won’t claim that.
I think where we differ, would be about certain beliefs where the reason to justify it is Tradition. Singing hymns, well people have always been singing. You can’t claim singing as well?
M
MichaelP3
Guest
1Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
You refer to the part Paul says women must cover their head. Can’t really see this one helping you out.
2Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
I see this one, comments on it will be rather long
2Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition
Stating later all must do according to what he wrote in that epistle would raise some questions
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
True. But why leave something out if it’s that important?
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Agreed, the Gospel has always been the word of God
Acts 20:35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
Thus he found something he deemed necessary to know, and now we know it
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
So he just reminded Timothy to remember what he told him. It would be strange if they didn’t speak
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men
I don’t really see the significance. It’s a well known fact Timothy was taught
2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
Agreed
2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
** Don’t see what this has to do with tradition**
1Pet 1:25 - God’s eternal word = word preached to you
Agreed, by Gospel. Very few could read. The Gospel was preached, we don’t go against anything from the gospel being even interpreted. Our problem comes when it’s not in the Gospel but so important
Rom 10:17 - faith come from what is heard from the word of Christ
The word of Jesus Christ, exactly.
1Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand
I think if you take this DR translation you would see I don’t even need to comment
Mk 16:15 - go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Exactly
Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you
**23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.
5 And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes.
6 And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues,
7 And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi.
**
**If you take the entire part, it sounds like people get burdened with a lot unneeded things. Exactly my definition of beliefs justified by tradition. Thanks for adding it, rather read it all **
The word tradition is found 14 times in the NT. Only 3 parts can be seen as positive to Catholic understanding (While all others are neutral or very against it, especially with Jesus). Thus 3 verses out of 14 is the entire bases a thought is equated to the authority of scripture. If that doesn’t sound like overreaching, I don’t know?
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
If we can agree that the bible is never approached with a pure mind or intellect, that we carry into it certain presumptions and ideas, then I would say the idea of tradition is precisely that. It is faith which is delivered us and informs our reading of the bible.
Tradition then wouldn’t be mere exposition of the bible or dogmatic statements or statements about the history of the early church not in the bible, but instead encompasses all of these and includes the liturgy and community life of the early Church.
No one can escape tradition, we all approach the bible from a tradition which informs our reading of that, be that Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant. What matters is what tradition is correct. The moment you begin to believe and read and interpret the bible you are either making a tradition or placing yourself firmly within a tradition of understanding it.
If some of the more radically reformed Protestants (when i say radically reformed I mean only to differentiate it from the magisterial reformation) can understand this, perhaps they will see why Catholics and Orthodox are insistent on their adherence and loyalty to tradition. To do away with it or say it is secondary is ultimately to do away with the faith itself which is informed by the whole life of the Church. Much like to do away with Sola Scriptura and Sola fide tradition of the protestant church is to do away with the Protestant faith.
Tradition then wouldn’t be mere exposition of the bible or dogmatic statements or statements about the history of the early church not in the bible, but instead encompasses all of these and includes the liturgy and community life of the early Church.
No one can escape tradition, we all approach the bible from a tradition which informs our reading of that, be that Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant. What matters is what tradition is correct. The moment you begin to believe and read and interpret the bible you are either making a tradition or placing yourself firmly within a tradition of understanding it.
If some of the more radically reformed Protestants (when i say radically reformed I mean only to differentiate it from the magisterial reformation) can understand this, perhaps they will see why Catholics and Orthodox are insistent on their adherence and loyalty to tradition. To do away with it or say it is secondary is ultimately to do away with the faith itself which is informed by the whole life of the Church. Much like to do away with Sola Scriptura and Sola fide tradition of the protestant church is to do away with the Protestant faith.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Agreed, you have a point. But then I can ask why one would find differences in Catholicism and Orthodox on very important subjects but both claim it from tradition? The very fact that there is a difference (and not the way you stand during mass, I mean doctrine) between the two should be a question to ask.
The other problem is that Catholics use the idea of Sacred tradition that they are the only ones that can interpret the scriptures. The magisterium hardly interprets scripture anymore because that was done and is fixed now. But that was done by some Bishops, Cardinals and even a Pope I can think of in the past, who would barely be allowed alcohol today taken their age. One could argue the holy spirit helped them and it is all true. Well why do they need to be educated to PhD level today if the holy spirit would help them today?
C
CeelosDeznos
Guest
First of all the word “tradition” everyone is talking about here, do you know what it means? Too many people read this word in the Bible as if the Scriptures were written in English and take for granted that the word “tradition,” such as in Matthew 15:6 (“you nullify the word of God by means of your tradition”), means something like a “custom” or “an invention of humans.” It does not.
The Greek word is PARADOSIS. It means “instruction” or “precept,” and more precisely in modern 21st century English it means “transmission.”
It originally refers to instruction that had been handed down in Judaism through the ages up to the point of the Second Temple era. At the time of Jesus the Jews had not yet decided upon a fix canon of Scripture. The priestly class of Sadducees accepted only the Torah. The Pharisees seemed to favor the Tanakh, though some sources suggest Daniel was in question at this time. The Diaspora enjoyed the widest library of all, the Septuagint.
“Canonization” was a product of the Gentile world. It was first introduced in the 2nd century via the Gnostic Marcion of Sinope. Once a bishop, Marcion developed a Gnostic approach to Christianity by creating a set of “proof texts” to support his teachings. He set a “rule” (in Greek KANON) by which to decree what books of holy writ were revelatory and excluding those that were not. His canon consisted of only an edited version of Luke and a select number of the Pauline epistles. Prior to this there had never been a canon of Scriptures in either Judaism or Christianity.
Official doctrine or instruction in both Judaism and Christianity was called PARADOSIS. In the full scale meaning it refers to proper instruction handed down from generation to generation, what was traditionally held as religious truth from one age to another.
PARADOSIS is the same word found in Matthew 15:2,3, and 6 where Jesus condemns the false teaching of some Jewish leaders and the one found 2 Thessalonians 2:15. In both instances PARADOSIS means exactly the same thing: instruction transmitted or handed down from teacher to student (and eventually from generation to generation if it is old enough).
Because there were no canonized Scriptures in either Judaism and Christianity until after the last of the New Testament books was written, PARADOSIS is what official doctrine was called. That is all there was.
But in Matthew 15, Jesus scolds some of the Jews who have made their own precepts and have passed these off as official Jewish PARADOSIS. These precepts Jesus talks about are not from God like the rest of Jewish worship. These come from men.
But PARADOSIS is just instruction. When it comes from God, even when relatively new, it can still be valid as mentioned by Paul in 2 Thessalonians. The word in most English Bibles for this word is “tradition,” but in this sense it still only means instruction handed down via transmission. The “handed down” part is where we get the word “tradition,” but the root of the word means “instruction” or “precept.” PARADOSIS is not bad as long as it is not invented by comes from God and revelation.
Thus one religion which differs from another in instruction and precepts would have different PARADOSIS or “tradition” from another. Get it?
Lastly, the Catholic Church has never “fixed” interpretations of all the Scriptures. Except for a small handful of texts which the Church has made dogmatic statements regarding, Catholics are encouraged and provided with the basic materials to interpret the Scriptures for themselves. It is a common misrepresentation of Catholicism that all interpretation of Scripture has been fixed by the Magisterium. It is one of those tales you hear from groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but it is “an invention of men.”
M
Michael68
Guest
Thank you for the post above. I have a better understanding now! 
J
JMM1957
Guest
Which “festival” are you referring to? And how are you defining “extra biblical”? I need these answers before I can give you the appropriate response.
J
JMM1957
Guest
In reference to your first paragraph, the answer should be obvious that the differences are a result of the split in the early Church that occured in 1054. There were many political complexities going on at that time, which I need not go into here, which added to the separation. The Orthodox held onto some existing traditions, and developed additional ones over the years which widened the differences, not only in traditions, but some minor theology issues as well.
In reference to your second paragraph, surely much of scripture can be interpreted properly by others outside the CC. The Holy Spirit is at work everywhere, trying to bring people to understanding, but it is clear that not everyone is on the same page in that understanding. Scripture has been interpreted by the CC, is there a need to do any more interpreting when it comes to meaning? Does the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures continue to change in other churches as time goes on? And what is wrong with furthering ones education, even to PhD levels?
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Yea I know about the problems in 1054. Once upon a time I was so interested and read more and more that I started to neglect my job. Sadly I always had a focus on everything from Catholic history that I neglected Orthodox history. That’ currently my research topic and I am quite intrigued.
On the second paragraph, go and see my post on “Where did you get your Bible” thread. I think it is appropriate to that paragraph as well.
Nothing wrong with getting a PhD. My wife is busy with hers and I am supporting her all the way.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Although I know I am not replying in full, as I need to sleep, it is 23:50 here.
Please elaborate as now it sounds like Jesus rebuked the way things were transmitted. And this is how I understood tradition in that sense. The way things were done and transmitted down the ages. Thus from apostles to the current Catholic Church.
And the Bible wasn’t transmitted, one can argue it changes somewhat with translations but we still have access to the ones used to translate?
Regards
D
Duane1966
Guest
Hi Ben,
To me Henry’s commentary falls flat. Who determines what is vain and what is not?
Since Jesus wrote nothing, we have no certain proof that what was written in the Gospels, is not an addition that should be rejected. Some Jews say that believing in Jesus is just a vain tradition of men that was added by people calling themselves Apostles.
The whole bible is a tradition. Just because someone took a tradition, and wrote it on a piece of papyrus, does not suddenly make it no longer a tradition of man. There is no certain proof that what was written was even by the Apostles. It took a Church following what had been traditionally accepted, to rubber stamp those writings and claim them as inerrant Scripture. She relied on tradition.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Hi Ben,
As an addendum to what I posted earlier, would not the part I have put in bold in Henry’s commentary, be a tradition, some would say vain, and therefore rejected?
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
I had replied in the other thread about Orthodoxy in your journey so I’ll continue here.
I’ve read that the 1054AD year is sort of arbitrary number and that they were actually separated from us(or headed that way) long before that.
For example, we have had a canon since 382AD that was affirmed at the synod level, then reaffirmed at larger councils(which they were a part of) yet it was never binding for them for whatever reason. In fact, to this very day they do not have a universally agreed upon canon.
As much positive as I found in orthodoxy, there was also some negative and a lack of a official canon was a big one for me.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Good question…
I think there is Tradition from above, having its foundation from Jesus and His Apostles, and there are traditions of men, which are customs established by men. The Church of God is able to confirm which is which.
I have wondered how Jesus came up with this Tradition:
Matthew 23
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."
I think there is Tradition from above, having its foundation from Jesus and His Apostles, and there are traditions of men, which are customs established by men. The Church of God is able to confirm which is which.
I have wondered how Jesus came up with this Tradition:
Matthew 23
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."
R
rcwitness
Guest
…also, I don’t think traditions of men are wrong in themselves. They are inevitable. It’s when they are portrayed as from God and used as burdens for salvation.
C
CeelosDeznos
Guest
It may be that you were sleepy, but I don’t comprehend your question.
I can say that what I posted was merely to demonstrate that the original Greek word for “tradition” simply means “instruction” and its transmission from teacher to disciple. All religious teaching is “tradition.”
Jesus condemned “traditions of men,” or instruction that was invented by humans and paraded as if it were from God. The fact that a teaching was called “tradition” (PARADOSIS) does not negate the value. It is the source of the instruction, whether from God or men, not the means of transmission that made it questionable in the eyes of Christ…
Holy “writ” or inspired Scripture is also PARADOSIS or “tradition.” PARADOSIS is the word for “instruction” with an emphasis on its manner of transmission, notably from teacher to disciple or from God to man. PARADOSIS can be oral teaching, true but as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states it can be transmitted “either by an oral statement or by a letter.”
Since PARADOSIS or “instruction” is handed down, either way the English word has been commonly “tradition” for PARADOSIS. Again, as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 proves, “tradition” can come in the form of speech or the written word.
The debates about “tradition” are a bit silly since in the original language PARADOSIS refers to any type of instruction regardless of the final form the transmission takes.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Which council that Orthodoxy recognises affirmed the synod of hippo?
- Status