What is more important than Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SIA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SIA

Guest
Surely there is more to Christianity than just the Bible, I think most everyone can agree with that. Not every word that Jesus spoke and not everything the Apostles taught and did is contained in Scripture. In having said this, the Sciptures have been with us now unchanged for some 2,000 years. What one concrete thing can we hang our hat on that has the premise and clear cut vision of our Lord as does Scripture? We have tradition yes, but how does that equate with the vast unchanging unwavering teachings of Christ and the Apostles of the Bible?
 
My only response, if you would call it that, is if Scripture is so “unchanging unwavering” in its teachings, how do we have so much division over what is what? Is infant baptism allowed or forbidden? Is there a Real Presence or not?
 
SIA said:
Surely there is more to Christianity than just the Bible, I think most everyone can agree with that. Not every word that Jesus spoke and not everything the Apostles taught and did is contained in Scripture. In having said this, the Sciptures have been with us now unchanged for some 2,000 years. What one concrete thing can we hang our hat on that has the premise and clear cut vision of our Lord as does Scripture? We have tradition yes, but how does that equate with the vast unchanging unwavering teachings of Christ and the Apostles of the Bible?
Click to expand...
We’ve had the Church for many years longer than we’ve had a complete, canonized Bible. The Church was teaching the “vast unchanging unwavering teachings of Christ and the Apostles” long before anyone took quill to parchment or vellum. Without guidance from the Church, people might come to their own erroneous conclusions about what Scriptures are saying to us. (Oh, wait, that’s happened already, first with the Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah, and later with various and sundry groups who rejected Jesus by rejecting His Church.) The Scriptures tell us that the Church is the pillar and bullwark (upholder and defender) of the Truth. Without the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, we would have no sure-fire way of knowing apostolic and canonical writings from spurious ones.
 
As Scripture tells us, we have the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.
 
SIA said:
Surely there is more to Christianity than just the Bible, I think most everyone can agree with that. Not every word that Jesus spoke and not everything the Apostles taught and did is contained in Scripture. In having said this, the Sciptures have been with us now unchanged for some 2,000 years. What one concrete thing can we hang our hat on that has the premise and clear cut vision of our Lord as does Scripture? We have tradition yes, but how does that equate with the vast unchanging unwavering teachings of Christ and the Apostles of the Bible?
Click to expand...
Catholic theology doesn’t think of it in terms of one being more important than the other. Scripture explicitly affirms the Church (Matthew 16:17-19, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17) and Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). The Church affirms Tradition and Scripture. Tradition affirms the Scriptures and the Church.

The best analogy I’ve heard is comparing Scripture to the bricks, Tradition to the mortar and the Church as the trowel used by the Master Builder. Tradition keeps the Scriptures in their proper OT and early Catholic context, and the Magisterium shows us how the two inter-relate. Tradition preserved the Scriptures before the Magisterium organized them canonically, Scripture delineates between man-made and Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium helps us distinguish between the two.

I find that for many Protestants, Tradition gets replaced with modern culture, and the Magisterium gets replaced with the lens of individual reason alone. I find both of these substitutions infinitely less satisfying for understanding God. Ultimately, as modern culture and mere human reason get elevated, the Bible itself comes under attack, whether it’s Luther wanting to throw out James and other books, or the more subtle assaults, like the ordination of female bishops in contravention of Scripture.
 
SIA said:
Surely there is more to Christianity than just the Bible, I think most everyone can agree with that. Not every word that Jesus spoke and not everything the Apostles taught and did is contained in Scripture. In having said this, the Sciptures have been with us now unchanged for some 2,000 years. What one concrete thing can we hang our hat on that has the premise and clear cut vision of our Lord as does Scripture? We have tradition yes, but how does that equate with the vast unchanging unwavering teachings of Christ and the Apostles of the Bible?
Click to expand...
The authority that provided the canon of Scripture would be one.
 
SIA said:
Surely there is more to Christianity than just the Bible, I think most everyone can agree with that. Not every word that Jesus spoke and not everything the Apostles taught and did is contained in Scripture. In having said this, the Sciptures have been with us now unchanged for some 2,000 years. What one concrete thing can we hang our hat on that has the premise and clear cut vision of our Lord as does Scripture? We have tradition yes, but how does that equate with the vast unchanging unwavering teachings of Christ and the Apostles of the Bible?
Click to expand...
Our current versions of the bible are not even 100% accurate copies of the originals. They are just really good reconstructions of the original text. Trust me buddy. We NEED and Infallible Church.
 
If “scriptures have remained unchanged for 2000 years”…then why did Luther write his version? Why did King James commission his version? Why have successors of theirs (Luther & King James) stripped books from the original Bible?

Why has it been necessary to “re-interpret” scriptures into more contemporary language? To shift the meanings? Yes, because it does. I keep waiting for the “left coast surfer dudes version” to come out wherein he speaketh “Christ, man…that is one gnarly dude”.:rolleyes:

The only thing that has remained constant and consistent is the fact that the Holy Catholic Church has protected both Scripture and Tradition from aberration. The need for an infallible Church is not only necessary…but required to prevent wrongs committed in the name of shifting culture biases and “feel good smarmy” theologies.
 
Belloc_Fan said:
Catholic theology doesn’t think of it in terms of one being more important than the other. Scripture explicitly affirms the Church (Matthew 16:17-19, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17) and Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). The Church affirms Tradition and Scripture. Tradition affirms the Scriptures and the Church.

The best analogy I’ve heard is comparing Scripture to the bricks, Tradition to the mortar and the Church as the trowel used by the Master Builder. Tradition keeps the Scriptures in their proper OT and early Catholic context, and the Magisterium shows us how the two inter-relate. Tradition preserved the Scriptures before the Magisterium organized them canonically, Scripture delineates between man-made and Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium helps us distinguish between the two.
Click to expand...
That is a nifty analogy - don’t think I’ve heard that one before. Makes perfect sense. 👍
 
RobHom said:
If “scriptures have remained unchanged for 2000 years”…then why did Luther write his version? Why did King James commission his version? Why have successors of theirs (Luther & King James) stripped books from the original Bible?
Click to expand...
One note: Luther’s translation included the entire (western) Bble. The discussion over the canoncity of the DC books predates Luther. Luther thought well enough of the DC to say that they are good for reading and study. He questioned whether they should be used as a source for doctrine. I have a copy (not original 😃 ) of Luther’s Bible and all the DC books are there.
I might also add that the Lutheran Confessions reference certain DC books on some occasions.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
One note: Luther’s translation included the entire (western) Bble. The discussion over the canoncity of the DC books predates Luther. Luther thought well enough of the DC to say that they are good for reading and study. He questioned whether they should be used as a source for doctrine. I have a copy (not original 😃 ) of Luther’s Bible and all the DC books are there.
I might also add that the Lutheran Confessions reference certain DC books on some occasions.

Jon
Click to expand...
😃 Jon, dagnabbit friend…you gave away the answer to my trick question!!😦 😃

Too bad your copy is not an original…I’d actually be afraid to have something that valuable in my possession!!
 
RobHom said:
Why has it been necessary to “re-interpret” scriptures into more contemporary language? To shift the meanings? Yes, because it does. I keep waiting for the “left coast surfer dudes version” to come out wherein he speaketh “Christ, man…that is one gnarly dude”.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Did anyone find that as funny as I did? 🤷
I just think of “Bill and Ted” when you said this! LOL!

“Far out (Amen), Far out (Amen) I say to you!”
 
SIA said:
Surely there is more to Christianity than just the Bible, I think most everyone can agree with that. Not every word that Jesus spoke and not everything the Apostles taught and did is contained in Scripture. In having said this, the Sciptures have been with us now unchanged for some 2,000 years. What one concrete thing can we hang our hat on that has the premise and clear cut vision of our Lord as does Scripture? We have tradition yes, but how does that equate with the vast unchanging unwavering teachings of Christ and the Apostles of the Bible?
Click to expand...
We have the Church that came first… from which the NT books of the bible sprang. And it was the Church that confirmed the 73 books of scripture as inspired writings, while denying the inspiration of other books that persons thought may be inspired. Surely, the scriptures are important and vital to a full understanding of Christian doctrine. But the Church IS the body of Christ, with the authority of Christ given by the apostles.

Peace,
-Robert
 
Guys, the “surfer dude” is so 80s, KWIM?

Check this out from the LOLCAT bible translation --the beginning of Luke 1:

Luke 1

From LOLCat Bible Translation Project

Jump to: navigation, [search](http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Luke_1#search(name removed by moderator)ut)
1 Lotz of peeplz tried to tel dis stori,2 its turnded into sort of an urbn lejnd LOL.3 So I investigaetd evrithin for mai frend Theophilus,4 so u will know teh truef.
lolcatbible.com/images/thumb/0/01/Srsly_Iz_Gabriowl.jpg/200px-Srsly_Iz_Gabriowl.jpg lolcatbible.com/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png
I knows Ceiling Cat

5 Wen Herrud hads cheezburgers, sum dood callz Zac hads waif callz Liz.6 Dey laiks Ceiling Cat and does not pee on his rug.7 But dey waz old and still has no kittehs.8 One dai, Zac waz serving Ceiling Cat,9 He hadz to smoke da catnip10 Wen every doodz was preying.11 And dey was an angel in da catnip -12 O noez But teh angel sed "is okai. You can has a kitteh. Calls him Jon.14 You can has partiez, and all teh doodz also15 Foar Ceiling Cat will laik him; but he cans not has da drinkies.16 An he will work foar teh Ceiling Cat17 And makes all teh doodz sry dey was bad."18 An Zac sed: "wat? But me and mai waif has rinkles"19 An teh angel sed “Srsly, Iz Gabriowl. I knows Ceiling Cat, who sendz me,20 But 'cos you doesn’t beleeve me you can has no voice foar now, kthxbai”.
 
RobHom said:
😃 Jon, dagnabbit friend…you gave away the answer to my trick question!!😦 😃

Too bad your copy is not an original…I’d actually be afraid to have something that valuable in my possession!!
Click to expand...
:o Oops. I see what you mean. Me and my big Lutheran mouth.
Ok everyone, when I say go, reread Rob’s post and ignore mine.
Go

Jon
 
tGette said:
Did anyone find that as funny as I did? 🤷
I just think of “Bill and Ted” when you said this! LOL!

“Far out (Amen), Far out (Amen) I say to you!”
Click to expand...
😃 Haz youz bin peekin’ in mah mine??😃

And yes…I was thinking about Bill and Ted when I wrote that…

I just wonder the LOLcat edition is gwanna hit duh blok?:rolleyes:

Thats just scary…

Yes, it was very 80’s…but then I’m not young anymore and the 80’s are something of a blur. …:o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top