What Iam in your eyes?

[De_Maria]

the basis of all their lives was the torah and the laws which it contained .

to say that the jews followed tradition first and scrptirure second is a very false statement (well depending on the era second temple judaisim did do that)

Nope. Study Judaism and then come back.

tradition did play a role yes but like i said the basis of everyhting was the torah

Yeah. The oral Torah.

Originally the Oral Law was not transcribed. Instead it was transmitted from father to son and from teacher to disciple (thus the name “Oral” Law). Approximately 1800 years ago, Rabbi Judah the Prince concluded that because of all the travails of Exile, the Oral Law would be forgotten if it would not be recorded on paper. He, therefore, assembled the scholars of his generation and compiled the Mishnah, a (shorthanded) collection of all the oral teachings that preceded him. Since then, the Oral Law has ceased to be “oral” and as time passed more and more of the previously oral tradition was recorded.

The Oral Law consists of three components:

1. Laws Given to Moses at Sinai ( Halachah L’Moshe M’Sinai) :

etcetera…
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/812102/jewish/What-is-the-Oral-Torah.htm

 

[Niblo]

That there are people who are sinless, and who die never having sinned.

 

[De_Maria]

This is Catholic Teaching. So?

 

[historyfan81]

… oh no

“No. It’s an argument of silence, for you. We don’t go by Scripture alone. Which you obviously do, regardless of your protesting that you don’t.”

… No , and i have said time and time again that scripture has higther authortiy but the other writtings do have authotiry as well

and i have even flat out said sola scriptura is flawed, so i guess when i say the writtings of the fathers are imporant and neccesary
makes me think you didnt read (which is bad) or for some reason you think i belive in sola sriptura when i have made it more than clear that i dont (which is worse)

“Then you’re mixing your arguments with authority and error. Where does Scripture say that the Church Teaches error? Provide the verse.”

what??? i never argued for that i just said that the church can commit mistakes which i already gave passages

What is the Church Hedraioma in this verse?

HEDRAIOMA of the TRUTH

the support of the truh not the basis of it (thats what iam trying to say)

ol! What do the Old Hebrews have to do with this. It is Christian who call it the Old Testament. Why did Christians call this the Old Testament? Were they wrong in doing so?

??? we where talking about isaah , and you claimed that " testemony = tradition" ( and we where still talking about isaah)

and i responed … not in acient hewbrew times.(Again refering to isaah)

and you responsed

“Have you ever looked up the word testament and compared it to testimony?”

and i responded with the word didnt exist in the times of issah

but now you where refering to the chirstians naming the old testmament ?

i though you where refering to the hewbrews since you didnt correct me and it seemed like you where talking about the context of the passage.

so forgive me that change seemed way off , maybe make that clear please since iam a little confused since it seemed like you swithched from testemony is tradtion in issah and the old testament…

to … they named the old testament are they wrong? which that really came out of no where since i didnt even refer to them

 

[historyfan81]

yeah no one is deniying that , that historical fact that the torah was writting during the exile , but the law came direcly from god to moses .

 

[De_Maria]

… No , and i have said time and time again that scripture has higther authortiy but the other writtings do have authotiry as well

and i have even flat out said sola scriptura is flawed, so i guess when i say the writtings of the fathers are imporant and neccesary
makes me think you didnt read (which is bad)

The writings of the Fathers don’t seem very important to you, since it is the Fathers who told me that the highest authority is the Church. Here’s an example:

CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Fundamental Epistle of …
www.newadvent.org › Fathers of the Church
For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (St. Augustine).

or for some reason you think i belive in sola sriptura when i have made it more than clear that i dont (which is worse)

The Church Fathers tell you that the Church is the higher authority.
Scripture tells you that the Church is the higher authority.

But you believe neither. So, whom are you following?

what??? i never argued for that i just said that the church can commit mistakes which i already gave passages

Yes, you said the Church is fallible. That means you believe the Church teaches error. Where does Scripture, your supposed highest authority, say that the Church teaches error.

the support of the truh not the basis of it (thats what iam trying to say)

So? What does that matter. Scripture says that the Church supports the truth. Does it say that the Church ever fails to support the truth? No. The implication is that the Church never fails to support the truth. So, where do you get the idea?

??? we where talking about isaah ,

You brought up the old hebrews. I corrected you because the old hebrews did not call their scriptures the “old” testament.

and you claimed that " testemony = tradition" ( and we where still talking about isaah)

Testimony remains a from of tradition.

and i responed … not in acient hewbrew times.(Again refering to isaah)…
so forgive me that change seemed way off , maybe make that clear please since iam a little confused since it seemed like you swithched from testemony is tradtion in issah and the old testament…to … they named the old testament are they wrong? which that really came out of no where since i didnt even refer to them

To answer the question, Testament is a testimony which has been recorded. The Old Testament is the oral testimony of the Jewish Fathers. Anyway, it remains part of tradition. Have you looked into the oral torah?

 

[De_Maria]

yeah no one is deniying that , that historical fact that the torah was writting during the exile , but the law came direcly from god to moses .

yes, you were denying it. The Jews followed the oral torah, mainly.

The Law consists of the Ten Commandments. Are you reducing Scripture to the Ten Commandments?

 

[Niblo]

This is Catholic Teaching. So?

I was answering a statement made about Muslims. Correcting a mis-understanding. Please read the relevant posts.

Thank you for your time.

 

[historyfan81]

??’
what i never denied the torah was oraly paseed where did you get that the oral torah became the written torah
it latter helped with undestanding the written torah

there is an exception wich is cient halakhot which have no connection with Scripture and can not be connected with it, thus deriving their authority only from the tradition which ascribes them [to moses and sianai

but unlike many catholics the jews are honest and say

it is impossible to ascertain which elucidations and rules were really given to Moses on Sinai, and which were added later.

so out of 8 components 1 doest not com from scripture and is important despite not having not comming from scripture and the jews not knowing whether some of these laws came from moses or where added later

kinda like how i said papal supremacy was not tough by the early church and one historicaly cant prove that it did .

also i would recomed you not to make hasty conclusions , this is why when i dont fully understand what your trying to convey i say it seems or it looks like , assuming is bad and i try to avoid it as much as i can
i would recomend the same thing .

The Law consists of the Ten Commandments? … the law of moses is much more than the 10 comandments 613 to be excact
or are you refering to one of my past staments ?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

This is Catholic Teaching. So?

I was answering a statement made about Muslims. Correcting a mis-understanding. Please read the relevant posts.

Thank you for your time.

Ok, I’ve read it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are disputing that the Muslims consider Mary to be born without sin. Is that correct?

But this quote from the hadith says otherwise:

Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab:
Abu Huraira said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, 'There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, EXCEPT MARY AND HER CHILD.” Then Abu Huraira recited: “And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan” (3.36) ( Sahih Al-Bukhari , Volume 4, Book 55, Number 641; see also Volume 4, Book 54, Number 506)

So, although it may not be a universal teaching in Islam, some do believe it.

 

[Niblo]

I’ve read it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are disputing that the Muslims consider Mary to be born without sin. Is that correct?

No. I was merely correcting the notion (or so it appeared to me…the original poster has yet to comment, and may yet do so, perhaps to say that I have misunderstood his words) that Muslims do not believe that a person can be sinless. Mary was conceived without original sin - as we all were. She was a noble woman, very much in love with God; and very much loved by Him. Impossible to believe that one so much in love would sin against her Beloved.

 

[De_Maria]

… Mary was conceived without original sin - as we all were. …

This contradicts Catholic Teaching. Only 4 people were born without original sin. Adam, Eve, Mary and Jesus.

 

[Niblo]

I’m not a Catholic. I’m a Muslim. We must agree to differ!

PS: My wife…who is a Catholic, would agree with you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 1 Corinthians 4:6

we also see that in the he New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching…

I think it is overreaching, to say, this means only scripture has the highest authority. St. Paul often appeals to the OT, to show, rightly, that what he is preaching about Jesus is found in the OT (what is written). That Jesus Himself, fulfills the prophets and the law.

However, what St. Paul is preaching, the Gospel, is only being written as he is writing his letters. You would have to claim, then, that St. Paul does not include what he is preaching, the Gospel, as having any authority beyond the OT. (The OT is what St. Paul is referring to anytime he writes “scripture”.)

The note on 1 Corinthians 4:6, in the NABRE: “It probably means that the Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation, contenting themselves with Paul’s proclamation of the cross, which is the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Old Testament (what is written).“

Claiming that St. Paul is teaching that scripture has the highest authority, is an incomplete understanding of what is taught in the NT. Later, we find that St. Paul’s writings are being called “other scriptures”.

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. 2Peter 3:15-16

So, this is an example of what we call Tradition, being elevated to the status to which St. Paul held the OT.

The RCC has not changed on this position.

Again, look to the liturgy. Where is Christ explicitly present? In the Eucharist, of course. In the gathering of baptized, who are the Body of Christ (the Church), and in the Liturgy of the Word (scripture).

The Body of Christ (the Church) is as Jesus is. Fully divine and fully human. The human aspect (us) is imperfect, makes mistakes and sins. The divine, Jesus Himself, is perfect and sinless. We Catholics must walk a balanced path. Never believing that we ourselves are sinless, free from mistakes, and never denying that we are freed from sin and made perfect, in Christ.

This should be our view of the Church, itself.

I recommend that you read Dei Verbum.

Pax tecum.

 

[historyfan81]

Many things have authority

I mean the church is called the supportet of truth according to Paul and revelation.
It’s still a debate from me of that tradition has the same level of scripture.

Since like I mentioned some traditions have evidence of not being true or not complete Truth.

Speaking of that , that is a very good question by what standard we judge true tradition and the false tradition of men?

But I will read what you mentioned la Paz

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are from the same source, inspired of the Holy Spirit. Both are delivered to us by human means, that is God works through us fallible humans to deliver his infallible message.

Jesus Christ, is the Word of God. He is scripture, fully revealed. We only know this because of Sacred Tradition. All that was handed on by the Apostles, is contained in Scripture and Tradition. Personally, I think it difficult to claim that the NT contains all that was handed on by the Apostles. It is obvious there was an authority that was handed on, that defined the contents of the NT. It is obvious there must be an authority that interprets Sacred Scripture.

One would have to claim this authority either ended, or never existed. Which defies Sacred Scripture.

I get it, you want to avoid circular arguments. However, it is also illogical to ignore evidence only because it is evidence of itself. The RCC and EO are the evidence that you are looking for.

Also read Lumen Gentium, the absolute authority of the Pope, that you have an image of, is only held within the college of Bishops. Pope Francis is a leader, with a special charism that is unique to the office of St. Peter. However, he is not a dictator.

 

[historyfan81]

Circular reasoning is a problem now I can not confirm for all catholics but what they tough me and I heard this in many deabates

Tradition validated scripture since it was tradition that made the Canon

Me : and by what authority?

Catholic : by scripture and god

So tradion came from god and validated scripture Wich was also given by god and then this scripture validated tradition .

… Yeah sounds like circular reasoning to me

But the again I can’t claim that all catholics say this

This opens the floor to other questions like .

How does one prove the authority of the Church?
Whereon does it rest and can this be proven on a basis that does not directly involve faith?

 

[historyfan81]

And no I didn’t think pope Francis is a dictador even though by he could be since then again suprpme authority of the papacy over the chrurh is the main reason why the Eastern orthodox chruch broke off since in there eyes the papacy was over extending it’s authority

 

[RebeccaJ]

And no I didn’t think pope Francis is a dictador even though by he could be since then again suprpme authority of the papacy over the chrurh is the main reason why the Eastern orthodox chruch broke off since in there eyes the papacy was over extending it’s authority

Yes, I know. Yet, the sui juris churches have their autonomy. For example, they select their own patriarchs. They have them approved by the Pope, but he has never rejected a selection.

There is what you are imagining, and there is the reality that is in practice.

For someone like me, who has a non-Christian background, the RCC/EO differences are very minor.

 

[historyfan81]

For some you loves history yes both churches have free differences.

The mostly slipt do yo serveral reasons

Like the muslim conquest isolating both churches
Political motivation etc
But the main reason was the authority of the papacy while the Eastern orthodox chruch view him as first among equals
The pope fashined himself as king over thr chruch with high authority to over ride say and do things with out consolting the bishops or the church.