- Status
B
bnapgh
Guest
With all respect, Noel, ’‘different’’ does not mean '‘exclusive’'. As I tried to highlight in your citation from the Catechism above, it says;
Note that it says ‘‘Tradition’’ is ‘‘in its entirety the Word of God’’. It does not say that ‘‘Tradition plus Holy Scriptures’’ are, nor that Holy Scripture alone has the entirety.
I expect that everyone would agree that Holy Scriptures are the ‘‘Word of God’’, but just not the entire ‘‘Word of God’’.
This confirms the mathematical expressions that Tradition as a ‘‘Set’’ is the entire ‘‘Word of God’’; All of Holy Scriptures is the ‘‘Word of God’’ but it is not the entire ‘‘Word of God’’. Therefore, mathematically expressed, Holy Scriptures are a ’‘Subset’' of the entire Set which is called Holy Tradition
Thanks for your patience.
B
Big_Dummy
Guest
I have not read past this post in the thread yet, so forgive me if I ask what has been answered between these posts. What is documented in the Church Fathers as part of the “all” that is not already documented in the NT? Thanks BD
N
neophyte
Guest
The table of contents.
B
Big_Dummy
Guest
fair enough, but why are there not any other authors that are referred to in thier writings besides apostles? Does this mean there were no other authors or does it mean none of the other authors (church fathers of that time) was as authoritive as the apostles?
Forgive my correction, they were in fact called traditions
1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6
I understand it to have to be of apolostolic origin too, which is why the Shepard of Hermas and the Didache were eventually ruled out as being scripture.
When you consider the history of those who copied and recopied the scriptures, then really is nothing to be amazed at.
I agree there was likely oral tradition, but as a historian the unwritten content really can not be verified. One by faith can only take someone’s word for it.
lol, sorry I completely disagree on that sentence. You may want to locate some of these books,
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement
The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures.
Ancient Near East, Volume 1: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures.
Ancient Near East, Volume 2: A New Anthology of Texts and Pictures.
Edited by James B. Pritchard
The Ebla Tablets
theopenword.org/ots/m_et.htm
The literature of ancient Egypt: an anthology of stories, instructions … By William Kelly Simpson
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_Literature/Literature_of_Ramesside_Egypt
amazon.com/Literature-Ancient-World-Part-Egypt/lm/R2LXE9C0EFLKIW
Old Testament Parallels (Fully Expanded and Revised) [Paperback]
Victor H. Matthews (Author), Don C. Benjamin (Author)
The Old Testament: Text And Context [Hardcover]
Victor H. Matthews (Author), James C. Moyer (Author)
Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (Context of Scripture) [Hardcover]
William W. Hallo (Editor), K. Lawson Younger (Editor), Harry A. Hoffner (Editor), Robet K. Ritner (Editor)
Readings from the Ancient Near East: Primary Sources for Old Testament Study (Encountering Biblical Studies) [Paperback]
Bill T. Arnold (Editor), Bryan E. Beyer (Editor)
The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? [Paperback]
John N. Oswalt (Author)
Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F.C. Fensham (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series, 48) [Hardcover]
W. Classen (Author)
The Context of Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World (Context of Scripture) vol. 3 [Hardcover]
William W. Hallo (Editor), K. Lawson Younger (Editor)
The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions and Archival Documents from the Biblical World, 3 Vol Set [Paperback]
William W. Hallo (Editor), K. Lawson Younger (Editor)
plus the psudegraphia, etc
But, we still can learn from one another,
As a historian, I can only go by what is written to document what was believed or debated at any given period of time — oral tradition is really just hear say.
I really don’t see a case for oral tradition to be protected from change by the Holy Spirit.
Please, start a new thread on that one.
Peter refers to himself as a fellow Elder, see his letters, so it is reasonalble for those on equal standing, bishops and apostles as elders to quote each other. I am simply curious if such did in fact happen.
You should quote that text in context because it is about all the things Jesus did, not all the things that the apostles taught.
John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
In a new thread, can you show anything that the Apostles taught which are recorded in the Church Fathers that is not taught in the NT? or anything for that matter that Jesus taught which are recorded in the Fathers that is not recoreded in the NT? Thanks
B
bnapgh
Guest
Pre Script for BigDummy:
Now after I have read your last post, and if I now understand you correctly, all that you, personally, are interested in is a list of cross-references between the NT and the Church Fathers, particularly ones in any areas of Tradition that were not covered in the NT per se. Is this right?
IMHO that is a very different question than the one you asked in the OP or, at least, than the one that most of us were respectfully trying to answer.
Such a question seems to be looking for empirical research, not for an explanation or reason or understanding. Is that fair?
Godspeed on your quest.
Be that as it may, here are my responses to your last specific post:
BTW reading one’s own thread oneself is the normal etiquette for message boards, isn’t it?
Now after I have read your last post, and if I now understand you correctly, all that you, personally, are interested in is a list of cross-references between the NT and the Church Fathers, particularly ones in any areas of Tradition that were not covered in the NT per se. Is this right?
IMHO that is a very different question than the one you asked in the OP or, at least, than the one that most of us were respectfully trying to answer.
Such a question seems to be looking for empirical research, not for an explanation or reason or understanding. Is that fair?
Godspeed on your quest.
Be that as it may, here are my responses to your last specific post:
You just answered your own question.
When you consider it was an oral culture to start and that there was no paper per se and that over 2,000 years which included mostly Dark Ages or Barbarian raids, it is surprising.
BINGO!!! Give the man a cupie doll! That is the whole point! The ‘‘Tradition’’ part of the Church is on Faith that the Paraclete will guide the Apostles and their successors in Truth until the consummation of the world.
All of the ‘‘writings’’ of the ancient world en masse would probably not surpass the information content of one year of the NY Times, let alone a few years, or new books published in any one year or the information on the internet…
Not to a Catholic! If one merely wants to look at the life and teachings of Christ from the well-publicized historical Jesus perspective, then there is no room for discussion. Christianity is based on Faith. One must believe Christ either a mad man or God. If He is God, then one must trust Him. If He says the Paraclete will guide the Apostolic succession in oral Truth until the consummation of the earth, then a Believer accepts that as our oral Catholic Tradition.
IMHO it is the same thread. As I said, it is not based on empirical proof — God does not WANT there to be empirical proof. He wants Love based on Faith, and Love based on Reason, but one cannot have Love based on empirical evidence — that is not love, that is an insurance policy.
For that you need a scholar, and, alas, I am a mere pilgrim. Sorry!
I did quote it in context. All the things Jesus DID (and said) were the basis for the Catholic Oral Tradition which is protected by the Paraclete until the consummation of the earth.
Again, I am not a scholar, but a pilgrim, so that is beyond my ken.
BTW reading one’s own thread oneself is the normal etiquette for message boards, isn’t it?
A
annem
Guest
Big Dummy
JOSEPHUS AntiQUITIES 10.2.1 XIII,297
297…What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have passed on to the people a great many observances handed down by their fathers, which are not written down in the law of Moses.
PHILO 10.2.2 THE SPECIAL LAWS IV 143-150
The Catholic church, which is Judaism fulfilled, also believes in both oral tradition and scripture.
God bless, Annem
Have you read any of the breakthrough books on orality? Surely all the newest evidence points to how very reliable oral tradition is. The ancient Jews believed in both scripture and oral tradition equally. Here are some quotes about oral tradition:
JOSEPHUS AntiQUITIES 10.2.1 XIII,297
297…What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have passed on to the people a great many observances handed down by their fathers, which are not written down in the law of Moses.
PHILO 10.2.2 THE SPECIAL LAWS IV 143-150
The Catholic church, which is Judaism fulfilled, also believes in both oral tradition and scripture.
God bless, Annem
I
inkaneer
Guest
You do know that the original manuscripts of the scriptures, those actually penned by the writers themselves are non existant. So why do you insist on writings of the church fathers that predate them? Also how can the Fathers of the Church be quoted in scripture. That is unless you talk of Paul, Peter, James, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, etc. as Church Fathers. However, usually the term 'Church Fathesr" refers to that group of church leaders of the sub Apostolic age, those who came after the Apostles and were their successors of whom it was said that they “still had the words of the Apostles ringing in their ears.” Here we speak of people like Ignatius of Antioch disciple of the Apostle John and Polycarp also a disciple of John. Polycarp lived a long time and Irenaeus was familiar with him. Do a google search for Church Fathers and you will be sure to find a list of along with their birth and death dates.
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Taking the words of your question at face value the answer would be: all the NT quotes Catholic tradition.
Christianity was preached and handed on through the teaching, life and worship of the Church before the NT was written. And it was written by people who received the faith this way and for people who so received it.
BD
You wrote:
Also Paul was not one of the original twelve.
Finally the John who wrote* Revelation/Apocalypse* (John the Seer) was not an apostle.
However I think most of the issues you raised have been clarified.
You wrote:
Half of the gospels were written by men who were not apostles, Mark and Luke.
Also Paul was not one of the original twelve.
Finally the John who wrote* Revelation/Apocalypse* (John the Seer) was not an apostle.
However I think most of the issues you raised have been clarified.
D
De_Maria
Guest
Throughout. The New Testament was derived from Tradition:
**83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
**
Iraneaus of Lyons
circa 120ad
Apostolic Authority of Scripture
**In responding to the Gnostics, Ireneaus also provided reasons for accepting the authority of the New Testament books. He believed the New Testament should be accepted because it rests on apostolic authority. “For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God. . . .” (*Against Heresies *3). “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us [the apostles, dwp], which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith” (*Against Heresies *3.1.1). He acknowledged as authoritative those books that virtually correspond to the 27 books of the canon. He believed the Bible taken as a whole is self-evident and that we should interpret scripture in the light of scripture. **
And Scripture Itself confirms this:
2 Peter 1:20
Understanding this first, that no **prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost. **
Sincerely,
De Maria
D
De_Maria
Guest
No problema. However, the point I’m making is that the Scriptures were preached first and then written. I hope we agree on that.
Sincerely,
De Maria
E
Erich
Guest
For nearly two thousand years Christians have held that John the Apostle, eyewitness of the public life of Christ, completed this Gospel about 95 AD.
From chapter XII of The Authors of the Gospels:
John says that CHRIST is the LOGOS [The WORD] of God (John 1: 1). The WORD and MONOGENES [the only begotten son of God] are one and the same person (1: 14). CHRIST, or The WORD, is not an inferior Aeon, but God (1: 1). Christ was not ignorant of God, but knew him always and perfectly in heaven (1: 18). Christ is not to be distinguished from the DEMIURGUS for he is the creator of the whole world (1: 10). LIFE and LIGHT are not particular and separate spirits, but the same as the LOGOS and CHRIST (John 1: 4, 7-9).
So John is saying that CHRIST, the LOGOS [The WORD], LIFE, LIGHT and MONOGENES (the only-begotten) are not distinct Aeons [Spirits], but one and the same Divine person. John says that an Aeon, LIGHT, did not enter into John the Baptist and communicate to him supreme knowledge of the Divine Will. He was a mere man and though inspired, much inferior to Jesus being only the forerunner of him (John 1: 6, 8, 15).
John explains that the Supreme God was not entirely unknown before the time of Christ. Men were enlightened in their own consciences, but they did not want to know him (1: 9-10). The Jews were not the particular people of an inferior god, DEMIURGUS, but of CHRIST, himself the only-begotten son of God (1: 11). Eventually he became man (1: 14) and fulfilled the Law of Moses, which was only a shadow of good things to come, and instituted its fullness. CHRIST came for all men not the Jews only (1: 12,13)). John refutes the idea that John the Baptist, preaching of the Law of Moses, was superior to CHRIST (John 1: 15-34).
In his following chapters, John selected incidents and miracles (see 1: 6, 8, 15-34) to support what he had affirmed. John showed Christ was superior to John the Baptist. A comparison of the passages above shows that Irenaeus was correct in giving the reason why this Gospel was written, so why not accept him as being correct when naming John the Apostle as its author?
and from further down in the same passage,
I
inkaneer
Guest
E
Erich
Guest
Oops, my mistake. However, the tradition that John the Apostle wrote Revelation is just as old. From the same URL:
also:
Papias (c. 60-139), too, recorded that John the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse… and Papias knew John personally!
- Status